Escorts set the rules!

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Real Professionals Write Short Sentences

 

This is one of those instances where I actually went ahead and read all of the posts. Here is a hopefully short, to the point commentary:

 

1. Is this escort a "hustler?" No. Is he more or less ethical? Not really; it misuses and misunderstands the concept of ethics and morality, either personally or professional. The business of escorting has implicit within it a basic transaction. Within that structure, the transaction can be defined in many ways. For this gentlemen, this is the choice he has made, it is no more nor less ethical than any choices I, for example, may make. Now, will most people view his choices one way versus my own? Certainly, but this is perception, not ethics.

 

2. Will he or will he not make money? This is an answer we honestly will never know and can only surmise. However, Mr. Munroe point, which has also been made by any number of other escorts, is a valid and, IMHO, common among escorts who are real professionals and genuinely interested in the men who come to them: every person has attractive qualities and a good escort finds and (in the best sense of the word) exploits those qualities.

 

3. There comes a time when an escort either will not or cannot do this; that is the point where, if he is solely escorting for money, he does as much a disservice to himself and to his clients. IMHO, this particular escort is already part of the way there, but that is my opinion. Will this limit his success? Of course, how could it not?

 

4. Should Kjun and other clients be insulted? I will thread lightly here; I agree with Mr. Nicholas' sentiments, however this issue has been discussed here and elsewhere and the fact of the matter is that escorts are human beings and do have (and should have) limitations. They may be as simple as sexual preference (why advertise yourself as versatile when the genuine truth is that you are not and may never be), but as has been pointed out by a number of clients, knowing that an escort has some limitations, even if somewhat absurdly narrow, prevents the possibility that a client may pay for a negative or unpleasant experience.

 

Was he rude? Not really. Was he insulting? Not really, although he should and could find a better and more appropriate way of stating his requirements. He did list some of them (no drugs, out calls only, etc.) on his profile, which gets me to my final point.

 

5. Men 4 Rent Now is introducing a number of new clients to the world of escorts and introducing a high number of individuals to escorting in a way that America On Line perhaps did but not in a searchable database format with photographs. Unfortunately, just as with AOL, it allows men for whom perhaps escorting is not the best career path, either as a part-time or full-time endeavor.

 

The reviews on that site are essentially meaningless. I could review myself hundreds of times. As with other sites that have reviews, none to my knowledge, excepting this one, has any built-in safe-guards to limit dishonesty. Finally, in his defense, there is a word limit to the escorts self-description profiles which also limits how they can describe themselves. I have already come across one escort in Columbus who took my profile and copied it word for word, except he substituted Midwestern for Southern European. My own profile does not cover everything I believe a client should know about me.

 

Finally, on this site, Kjun could create an escort profile. As could N.N. or Doug69. You do not need a telephone number or photographs, just an e-mail address. Those are as prevalent as cotton candy at a fair ground or shit on a stick at a pissing contest between queens.

 

Attempting to tar (or praise) escorts generally on the basis of escorts on this particular site is as meritorious as judging the President on the basis of the quality of his pre-war intelligence.

[Flower]

>Perhaps I am just upset because I do not qualify - too old and

>too fat - , but I found these rules offensive. He is the

>first escort I've contacted who has such rules. What do you

>think?

>

>the Cajun

 

Since you're asking :+, I think you ought to just move on to someone else and let him do his thing--we all have lines we don't cross--why bitch and whine cause he what's to be selective? I doubt that he will do well in the market place, but if he does, then so be it.

 

There are plenty of great escorts that are more into the client than themselves--but are you not being a bit duplicit when you yourself are choosing him based on looks only? ("pictures of Mr. Mountain cause my heart to palpitate" )

 

At least he told you in a generic type of letter that let you know up front and before he saw you or you told him anything, instead of walking away after you opened the door--now that really would have been rude and unprofessional.

 

And besides, from your post, I gather it's OK for you to be "choosy" but not him?}(

[Guest fukamarine]

RE: Real Professionals Write Short Sentences

 

>This is one of those instances where I actually went ahead

>and read all of the posts. Here is a hopefully short, to the

>point commentary:

 

Thank God you didn't give us the long version!

:-)

 

fukamarine

[Flower]

Why does it bother you so much? I'm not trying to be negative but I don't understand so many folks here are getting down on the escort for being selective.

 

Is it poor business? YES. Will he be in business long? Probably not. But isn't it his business to fail? And it's not like he insulted anyone personally or said NO after getting a picture--he just sent out his "rules."

 

Don't we all have "lines" in our work place? If they are drawn too narrow, then the enterprise will surly fail, but why get mad at the guy and wish him ill or want to play mean tricks on him--why not just let him fail in peace. If costco undercuts Target in price, do you go and throw a brick through Target's window?:+

[Flower]

>when the product for sell (sic) determines the conditions for the buyer?

 

I personally find this comment MUCH more offensive than the escort's rules--think about itx(

[+ Lucky]

RE: Real Pros Write Short Sentences

 

Am I going nuts? This is the third post this morning from Mr. Fukamarine that I have agreed with or liked. I must have hit my head when I jumped into that swimming pool!

[Guest jeffOH]

>jeffOH said "He's obviously in it mainly for the money..."

>How do you know that, jeffOH?

 

Because I've met MANY escorts in my 12 years as an escort and IN MY EX

PERIENCE, escorts who have had these limitations gave me the impression that it WAS mostly about the money for them. Not only does this one require a "recent picture", but he also has a limited age range WELL below the average of most clients. A good escort IS NOT as concerned with his own turn-ons as he is about his client's. A good escort is able to perform regardless of his client's looks, age, weight or even race.

 

>He's limiting his client base

>substantially; does he seem more in it for the money than an

>escort who takes all comers?

 

Yes, he's limiting his client base "substantially" and I'll bet he's also limited as to what services he'll provide. These "vanity escorts" as I call them, usually don't last very long. They have a different view of escorting than most. It's more about them. What turns them on and not so much about the client. You have to be REALLY HOT to get away with something like that and from the look of things, this guy doesn't fall into that category.

 

>I have great respect for escorts who can do well with a wide

>range of clients. But escorts who are less adaptable are not

>necessarily bad escorts in my book.

 

Well, I never said ALL escorts who are less adaptable are ALWAYS bad escorts. In my escorting experience(both being an escort and hiring)the guys who've had more restrictions don't last long. I certainly wouldn't have lasted this long if I'd had such limitations.

 

JEFF

jeff4men@hotmail.com

[Doug69]

Sick hypocrisy

 

>Well imo, it is offensive to any client, whether they meet

>his requirements or not. Shows real hustler attitude on his

>part and that attitude is a real turnoff, that will cost him a

>lot of business, but then again I guess he has a right to

>limit his business if he wants.

 

This is the single funniest and most hypocritical thing I have ever read. In the archives, there was a discussion of Small Town John's exclusion of black clients from his escorting practice, and virtually everyone rushed to defend him and his right to single out categories of people to exclude as clients, arguing that he was doing the right thing by being honest about whom he finds unattractive. Indeed, many of the same people who are attacking this escort were the same ones who defended STJ for doing exactly the same thing.

 

But that's different, because most of the people here aren't excluded by STJ's standards, so it's ok.

 

But many, if not most, of the people here are excluded by Mr. Mountain's standards, so now many of the same people who defended STJ are viciously attacking this escort, even though the 2 escorts do the same EXACT thing: namely, honestly announcing that they don't want to see certain clients because they don't find them attractive.

 

I guess an escort's exclusive standards are ok as long as they don't exclude you, but only exclude others.

[Doug69]

>Escorts who have these restrictions are most likely not all

>that good of an escort in the first place and also are

>limiting their business to pretty much nothing. He's obviously

>in it mainly for the money and apparently has an highly

>exaggerated opinion of himself. Unless he drops his

>requirements, it's unlikely he'll last long as an escort.

 

This is the exact opposite of what you argued when defending Small Town John's policy of not having black clients. There, you argued that it was his right to do this, and that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it.

 

Now, here's an escort who is doing the same exact thing - one could argue it's much less offensive, since it involves no racial exclusion - and now you are arguing that exclusionary practices prove that he's a bad escort who is "in it mainly for the moeny and apparently has an highly exaggerated opinion of himself."

 

How can it be perfectly ok for Small Town John to exclude blacks from his clientele on the ground that he's not attracted to them, but awful and offensive and wrong for Mr. Moutain to exclude old or fat guys on the same exact ground?

[Doug69]

>Really, how ridiculous is the escort scene becoming when the

>product for sell determines the conditions for the buyer?

 

Then how come you defended STJ's policy of excluding black clients from his practice?

[Guest jeffOH]

Wrong, it's not the exact opposite. Just as it was Small Town John's right to set limitations, so it is with this guy. I NEVER said it was not his right. Also, that thread had more to do with whether or not it was racist or just a preference on STJ's part.

 

My point, based upon my EXPERIENCE, is that the more limitations an escort has the LESS LIKELY they're not a very good escort. I'm not saying ALL who have limitations aren't good escorts, but the more limitations an escort does have it's MORE LIKELY that they're not a very good escort. STJ's one limitation, isn't as limiting as requiring a pic, requiring a client to be height/weight proportionate and the 18-40 age range, which would narrow down his clientele pool to practically nothing.

 

This guy could very well be a wonderful escort for those clients who happen to fall into his requirements, but it's unlikely he'll last long with such criteria.

 

JEFF

jeff4men@hotmail.com

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: Sick hypocrisy

 

>This is the single funniest and most hypocritical

>thing I have ever read. In the archives, there was a

>discussion of Small Town John's exclusion of black clients

>from his escorting practice, and virtually everyone rushed to

>defend him and his right to single out categories of people to

>exclude as clients, arguing that he was doing the right thing

>by being honest about whom he finds unattractive. Indeed,

>many of the same people who are attacking this escort were the

>same ones who defended STJ for doing exactly the same thing.

 

IT'S NOT "EXACTLY THE SAME THING"! If I were to eliminate blacks from my clientele, that would amount to about 1%. If I were to eliminate everyone who's over 40 and not height/weight proportionate, that would leave me MAYBE 10% of my clientele. My comments were all about his restrictions are how exclusive they are, NOT whether or not he has the right to set such rules. Just as it's STJ's right to establish preferences, so it is with this guy. I may not agree with either of them, but it's most certainly their right to decide who they'd prefer to see.

 

JEFF

jeff4men@hotmail.com

[Doug69]

>Wrong, it's not the exact opposite. Just as it was Small Town

>John's right to set limitations, so it is with this guy. I

>NEVER said it was not his right.

 

Fine - I don't think anyone's contesting whether this escort has the "right" to set these limits - they are debating whether or not it's appropriate or wrong of him to do so.

 

When it came to discussing STJ's limitation on his clients, very few people - and certainly not you - said that the fact that he had limitations made it likely that he's a bad escort or that he was just a hustler in it for the money. So I don't understand why this guy's limitations provokes such a hostile, critical reaction.

 

To me, what STJ does and what this escort does are exactly the same thing. But if you're going to try to argue that one's is worse, I would think that the vast majority of people would say it's worse to exclude people from sex based upon their race than it is based upon their looks and age.

 

But even if you don't accept that STJ's exclusion is more potentially offensive, since it's race-based, the worst you can say about Mr. Mountain is that he, just like STJ, excludes clients because he doesn't feel he can do a good job with those clients.

 

And I can't help but noticing that whereas STJ's exclusion provoked almost universal praise, this escort's exclusions have provoked almost universal scorn. And I also can't help wondering whether that's because STJ standards don't operate to exclude most of the people who post here, where Mr. Mountain's standards opreate to exclude a huge number of people who do post here.

 

>My point, based upon my EXPERIENCE, is that the more

>limitations an escort has the LESS LIKELY they're not a very

>good escort.

 

So do you think that STJ's exclusion makes it LESS LIKELY that he's a good escort - even while recognizing that he may be a perfectly great escort? Just in terms of probability, you seem to be saying that the fact that he excludes a whole category of people lowers the liklihood that he's a good escort. Isn't that a fair reading of your view?

 

As Rick pointed out, I tend to conclude the opposite. To me, a bad escort - or a hustler - is someone who meets a client knowing he can't do a good job, but meets anyway just for the money. A good escort is upfront about his limitations - and I think it's extremely commendable that this escort candidly acknolwedges that a whole group of clients shouldn't call him, even though he knows that this honesty is likely to cost him a lot of money and will drive away a lot of paying clients.

 

To me, that's the opposite of a hustler, and I think this escort's honesty should be heralded.

 

>This guy could very well be a wonderful escort for those

>clients who happen to fall into his requirements, but it's

>unlikely he'll last long with such criteria.

 

I'm not sure why this is true. From what I read on this Board, a lot of clients fit into this guy's standards. If he is particularly good at servicing such clients, there isn't any reason why he can't have a prosperous, long career servicing them.

[Guest jeffOH]

>Fine - I don't think anyone's contesting whether this escort

>has the "right" to set these limits - they are debating

>whether or not it's appropriate or wrong of him to do so.

 

Well, fine then, I don't think it's good business for STJ to have exclude blacks nor do I think it's good business for Colorado Mountain dude to set his. But, they are both being honest, I suppose that counts for something. Also, one's limitations are MUCH more exclusive than the other's, not the same thing at all!

 

>To me, what STJ does and what this escort does are exactly the

>same thing.

 

They're NOT "EXACTLY THE SAME THING" and saying it over and over doesn't make it so. STJ had ONE minor limitation, whereas Colo Mountain has at least TWO major restrictions. I don't agree with either escort on their client criteria, but based upon STJ's reviews his ONE limitation hasn't had much of an effect.

 

>But if you're going to try to argue that one's is

>worse, I would think that the vast majority of people would

>say it's worse to exclude people from sex based upon their

>race than it is based upon their looks and age.

 

Sure and I'd agree with that IF STJ was a racist, which I don't believe to be true. But, it's still a single preference which eliminates very few. Colo Mountain guy's limitations are much more exclusive. There is a distinction here.

 

>But even if you don't accept that STJ's exclusion is more

>potentially offensive, since it's race-based, the worst you

>can say about Mr. Mountain is that he, just like STJ, excludes

>clients because he doesn't feel he can do a good job with

>those clients.

 

No, I can also say that he's eliminating most of his potential clientele, is not likely to get many clients and won't last long in the escort world. I certainly don't think STJ's preference is offensive, because I believe it's just that, a PREFERENCE, nor do I think Colo Mountain guy's restrictions are offensive either, just extremely limiting.

 

>And I can't help but noticing that whereas STJ's exclusion

>provoked almost universal praise, this escort's exclusions

>have provoked almost universal scorn. And I also can't help

>wondering whether that's because STJ standards don't operate

>to exclude most of the people who post here, where Mr.

>Mountain's standards opreate to exclude a huge number of

>people who do post here.

 

They both have the right to set their restrictions, STJ's will most likely not have an effect on his business, Colo Mountain man's will definitely impact upon his potential business.

 

>So do you think that STJ's exclusion makes it LESS LIKELY that

>he's a good escort - even while recognizing that he may be a

>perfectly great escort? Just in terms of probability, you

>seem to be saying that the fact that he excludes a whole

>category of people lowers the liklihood that he's a good

>escort. Isn't that a fair reading of your view?

 

Yes, that's totally fair, but STJ's posts on here AND his reviews prove otherwise.

 

>To me, that's the opposite of a hustler, and I think this

>escort's honesty should be heralded.

 

Sure, I can appreciate his honesty, but until you've hired him or he has a bunch of reviews documenting what a great escort he is, we won't know for sure, now will we?

 

ONCE AGAIN, I've known escorts who had this many restrictions and they didn't last. This has been my experience.

 

>>This guy could very well be a wonderful escort for those

>>clients who happen to fall into his requirements, but it's

>>unlikely he'll last long with such criteria.

>

>I'm not sure why this is true. From what I read on this Board,

>a lot of clients fit into this guy's standards. If he is

>particularly good at servicing such clients, there isn't any

>reason why he can't have a prosperous, long career servicing

>them.

 

Because, first of all, he's located in where? Colorado?, second, I don't know what Board you're reading, but there certainly AREN'T "a lot" of clients who'd fit into this guy's standards. He'd probably have a bit more luck with a younger, more fit clientele pool if he were located in NYC, LA, Miami, San Diego or San Francisco.

 

JEFF

jeff4men@hotmail.com

[+ Lucky]

RE: Sick hypocrisy

 

Doug, would you have us believe that you actually combed the archives for an instance such as the STJ case?

Why don't you just post under the screen name that you regularly use and save us this impersonation?

[Doug69]

RE: Sick hypocrisy

 

>IT'S NOT "EXACTLY THE SAME THING"! If I were to eliminate

>blacks from my clientele, that would amount to about 1%. If I

>were to eliminate everyone who's over 40 and not height/weight

>proportionate, that would leave me MAYBE 10% of my clientele.

 

If your only point - as appears to be the case - is that it limits an escort's business to have exclusive standards, then we have no disgareement. Clearly, an escort will have more clients if they are willing to see anyone at all than if they declare certain clients off-limits, and you are undobutedly right that STJ's standards are probably less limiting than Mr. Mountain's, since there are far fewer clients who are black than there are clients who are old and/or fat.

 

BUT there are many people in this thread who have not merely argued that Mr. Mountain is reducing his business with these standards. THey have argued that he is wrong to do so. In fact, they have gone much further than merely arguing that such exclusionary standads are wrong - they have called him a "hustler," a "schmuck," have warned people against using him - basically treated him like he's a criminal and a thief and a slimy hustler.

 

Inexplicably, some of the people who have viciously attacked Mr. Mountain for having exculsionary standards (and you are NOT one of them) are the same ones who vigorously defended STJ for having exclusionary standards.

 

Although you are correct that they are not teh SAME EXACT THING strictly from the narrow perspective of which one excludes more clients, it is the EXACT SAME THING from an ethical perspective, i.e., whether or not it makes an escort a "hustler" and worthy of scorn simply because there are certain types of clients they don't want to see.

 

If someone (such as VaHawk and others) thinks that what Mr. Mountain does is so awful and wrong, how can they possibly defend STJ from doing it?

 

But others here have called him a "hustler,"

>My comments were all about his restrictions are how exclusive

>they are, NOT whether or not he has the right to set such

>rules. Just as it's STJ's right to establish preferences, so

>it is with this guy. I may not agree with either of them, but

>it's most certainly their right to decide who they'd prefer to

>see.

>

>JEFF

>jeff4men@hotmail.com

>

[AaronScottDC]

RE: Sick hypocrisy

 

>Why don't you just post under the screen name that you

>regularly use and save us this impersonation?

 

Because, Lucky, it is SO much more fun when guys change their names on this board and start spouting off under a different guise. It makes it seem like there are a whole lot more people out there who actually read and respond to this message center than there actually are. You wouldn't want to just see the same old 3 or 4 names that are usually kicking around on here everyday would ya? This way it is much more refreshing and exciting!

 

Aaron Scott DC

http://www.erados.com/AaronScottDC

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/aaronscottdc.html

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: Sick hypocrisy

 

>Although you are correct that they are not the SAME EXACT

>THING strictly from the narrow perspective of which one

>excludes more clients, it is the EXACT SAME THING from an

>ethical perspective, i.e., whether or not it makes an

>escort a "hustler" and worthy of scorn simply because there

>are certain types of clients they don't want to see.

 

I've said that my experience has been that of the many escorts I've known over the last 12 years, the ones who have had the limitations Colo Mountain guy has, were not very good escorts and didn't last very long in the business.

 

Unless your familiarity with the escort world is equal to or greater than mine, I think my opinion carries a bit more weight than yours.

 

JEFF

jeff4men@hotmail.com