REVIEWS??????

[+ Axiom2001]

Ever since the closure of www.rentboy.com, many of the reviews here seem to have been rather tame, lacking explicitness. Have anyone else noticed this? I, for one, do not like it, for I get such a slice of the experience that it leaves me wondering if I want to see the men who have been reviewed.

 

I'd be interested in getting the views and the sense of others, but if the reviews have been written to protect this website and its creators, then I can readily accept!

[down_to_business]

Not really, but I am sure your point is valid.

 

I don't get anything out of reviews unless its from someone that I trust or value as a reviewer anyway, so it really has no effect on me personally.

[+ quoththeraven]

Ever since the closure of www.rentboy.com, many of the reviews here seem to have been rather tame, lacking explicitness. Have anyone else noticed this? I, for one, do not like it, for I get such a slice of the experience that it leaves me wondering if I want to see the men who have been reviewed.

 

I'd be interested in getting the views and the sense of others, but if the reviews have been written to protect this website and its creators, then I can readily accept!

 

While I also find reviews that are more detailed more helpful, I am fairly sure the change was made in light of the Rentboy situation not only to protect the site but to protect reviewers and the escorts they review. By its very nature, though, a decision of that sort is also unlikely to be discussed or confirmed on the site.

[mike carey]

I'd be interested in getting the views and the sense of others, but if the reviews have been written to protect this website and its creators, then I can readily accept!

I am fairly sure the change was made in light of the Rentboy situation not only to protect the site but to protect reviewers and the escorts they review.

I have only written one review and it was well after the Rentboy event. I didn't write it with a view to protecting this site, and I wouldn't do so. I am not inclined to talk in detail about the sexual aspects of what may have happened, preferring to talk about the connection. But that's just me.

[+ quoththeraven]

I have only written one review and it was well after the Rentboy event. I didn't write it with a view to protecting this site, and I wouldn't do so. I am not inclined to talk in detail about the sexual aspects of what may have happened, preferring to talk about the connection. But that's just me.

 

Axiom2001's observation that reviews changed after Rentboy is correct, though, and I thought I saw intimations that some reviews written beforehand but posted afterward were rewritten and that standards for reviews changed due to the prosecution. That doesn't mean that nobody wrote non-explicit reviews before. They did.

[+ not2rowdy]

From a few months back:

 

http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/reluctant-to-post-review-in-these-rentboy-gone-days.107233/#post-997648

[+ quoththeraven]

From a few months back:

 

http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/reluctant-to-post-review-in-these-rentboy-gone-days.107233/#post-997648

 

That's what I was thinking of, although in my dotage I'd forgotten the specific context. Thank you!

[Moondance]

Ever since the closure of www.rentboy.com, many of the reviews here seem to have been rather tame, lacking explicitness ... I, for one, do not like it ...

I hear you, Ax. Some of those older reviews, written by men who know their way around the English language, not only sparked an interest in meeting a guy you'd never considered before, but packed a sexy, vicarious thrill.

 

Now, well... I guess it's a situation not unlike that of the sad sack whose doctor tells him he has to go on a bland diet.

 

Of course, I respect the perogative of "Guy Fawkes" to post only a more discreet style of review in the post-Rentboy world--particularly because I know that I, too, would now be more cautious with anything I wrote, if, in fact, I wrote anything at all.

 

Still, it does make the reviews less fun, and, now that I'm thinking about it, I guess I find the new policy a little confusing in light of the fact that the older reviews--written records of encounters between hundreds of guys, many including explicit detail--are still accessible on this site.

[+ Truereview]

I am not inclined to talk in detail about the sexual aspects of what may have happened, preferring to talk about the connection. But that's just me.

 

+1 here. Following is the first sentence of the Daddyreviews form that provides guidance on how to write about the experience: "You don't need to go into the intimate details if you don't want to. " My take on this guidance is that some folks will want to and some won't. It is all good bc in the end, my hiring decision won't be based on a well-written review that resembles a piece of erotica. No sir - I made that mistake once a while back. However, I will be influenced by the patterns in the cumulative reviews - particularly reviews from forum members whose handle I recognize. To me, the sum of the reviews should overwhelmingly state what I'm looking for (in my case: he is a good communicator, he is punctual, he made the client feel at ease, he matched his pix, but all else is upto him and me). If I really needed any other explicit details, I'd probably do a 411 in the forum or try PMs.

[+ quoththeraven]

I hear you, Ax. Some of those older reviews, written by men who know their way around the English language, not only sparked an interest in meeting a guy you'd never considered before, but packed a sexy, vicarious thrill.

 

Now, well... I guess it's a situation not unlike that of the sad sack whose doctor tells him he has to go on a bland diet.

 

Of course, I respect the perogative of "Guy Fawkes" to post only a more discreet style of review in the post-Rentboy world--particularly because I know that I, too, would now be more cautious with anything I wrote, if, in fact, I wrote anything at all.

 

Still, it does make the reviews less fun, and, now that I'm thinking about it, I guess I find the new policy a little confusing in light of the fact that the older reviews--written records of encounters between hundreds of guys, many including explicit detail--are still accessible on this site.

 

1. Not all the reviewers are men. At least three women, not all of whom are forum members, but one of whom is me under a different name, have posted reviews. Mine are at least partially open door.

 

2. There is no point in trying to revise pre-Rentboy reviews. That horse is already out of the barn and it would be an imposition (to say the least) on top of the herding of felines running the site (or at least the MF side of the site) entails. The citation of reviews in the arrest complaint suggests it's in escorts' and reviewers' best interests, as well as the site's, to be more circumspect. The same could be said of 411 inquiries.

 

3. If you need further convincing, I have one word for you: subpoena. Anyone who needs further elucidation beyond that, please contact me privately.

[Moondance]

1. Not all the reviewers are men.

A lapse in the the way I expressed myself. Apologies.

There is no point in trying to revise pre-Rentboy reviews ... The citation of reviews in the arrest complaint suggests it's in escorts' and reviewers' best interests, as well as the site's, to be more circumspect. The same could be said of 411 inquiries.

I didn't suggest revising them. My point was that they haven't been removed altogether. I completely understand (and acknowledged) the impulse to be more circumspect these days, but if that instinct is out of a desire to protect the site, the owner of the site, and the escorts who are reviewed on it, well ...

 

The facts are that (a.) explicit reviews of encounters between escorts and clients still exist on this site (even if the newer ones aren't explicit); (b.) in fact, since you mention the arrest complaint, explicit reviews still exist on this site of men who were named and whose ads were used as examples of Rentboy advertising in the arrest complaint; and (c.)--as you've pointed out--there's often a lack of circumspection in some of the 411 inquiries and other escort discussions in The Deli.

If you need further convincing, I have one word for you: subpoena...

I'm not asking for you to convince me of anything. I simply agreed with Axiom's initial sentiment, acknowledged the perogative of "Guy Fawkes" to do whatever he wants and shared my own perspective on the reviews.

 

I would guess--and it's just that: my guess--that in modifying the rules for reviews, "Guy Fawkes" must have thought long and hard about the existence of all those older reviews that mention details impermissable in newer reviews. Would it have been another layer of discretion to remove those old reviews? Would it have compromised the perceived value of the site? Those are questions that would have occurred to me.

 

But the old reviews remain. Still attached to the review site. Still--unquestionably--valuable to both escorts and prospective clients. And if mentioning the word "subpoena" is supposed to "convince me" that explicit reviews pose a risk, well then, the risk remains.

 

I'm sure we share the hope that no agency will come after the review site, or after any of the individuals who are reviewed--or are reviewers--on it.

[+ jc808]

With respect to any exposure (sorry) for escorts/reviewers, the potential "offenses" that might be of concern are usually on the lower end of serious with relatively short statutes of limitations periods. Hence, as time passes, older reviews will be less and less relevant for all concerned from any sort of a legal perspective.

[Bob]

Thank you all for the clarification. I too have been very disappointed by most of the recent reviews but at least I now know why. I was afraid that many reviewers were trying to be coy. Before I spend the money to hire I want to know just how far the escort can go to make me happy. I'm not good at reading between the lines.

[+ quoththeraven]

Removal altogether hadn't occurred to me as a possibility. It would, as you allude to, adversely affect the site's usefulness. If done without consultation, it might turn off a lot of reviewers and keep people from submitting reviews in the future. It would also affect escorts who post links to their reviews or mention them in their advertising.

 

I know of a reviewer who after the Rentboy raid asked that his reviews be deleted. They weren't.

[+ purplekow]

I submitted two reviews just prior to the Rentboy episode. One, which was mild and favorable was posted, one which was much more detail and specifically extolled the wonder that is this escort's body, was not published. My feeling was that the exact details of the second review were a bit too steamy for the post Rentboy Daddy's.

[Moondance]

Removal altogether hadn't occurred to me as a possibility. It would, as you allude to, adversely affect the site's usefulness. If done without consultation, it might turn off a lot of reviewers or keep people from submitting reviews in the future. It would also affect escorts who post links to their reviews or mention them in their advertising.

It seems that way to me too. And, so, in my view, while I fully understand the instinct for caution (as I keep saying), I think there's an odd compromise here, an attempt to walk a tightrope between legal risk and killing the value of the review site. Unfortunately, I think "Guy Fawkes" is between a rock and a hard place on this.

 

I know of a reviewer who after the Rentboy raid asked that his reviews be deleted. They weren't.

Since this decision is entirely out of the hands of escorts or clients, and since most of us understand the greater impulse to caution since last August, I suspect it gives pause to some escorts about whether they want reviews and pause to some clients about whether they will ever write another.

[+ José Soplanucas]

I'm fine with discrete reviews. No matter how well written a review is, there is a good chance the details I am interested in are going to be omitted. A review reporting how easy was the contact and the communication, and how satisfactory the connexion and the experience is good enough for me. For details, I prefer to use PMs with other forum members, where we can ask specific questions and really share the experience.

[TruHart1]

From a few months back:

 

http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/reluctant-to-post-review-in-these-rentboy-gone-days.107233/#post-997648

That's what I was thinking of, although in my dotage I'd forgotten the specific context. Thank you!

I remember this "Daddy sez" too. I am in the process of writing a new review for one of my regular hires. Because in the past I have immensely enjoyed sharing the hottest things graphically about an escort AND what he did so well to make our time together memorable, sparing no details, I am now retooling my approach to writing reviews. I am looking at this as a writing challenge of conveying just how hot my time with an escort was without the explicit descriptive language. Although I've yet to submit this review, I am hoping my writing will be able to convey just how great my experience was! We'll all see just how successful this idea is, hoping, of course, that Daddy approves and posts it!

 

Everyone should also remember that if you know the reviewer is a regular on the forum and you are interested in more details about an escort he/she has reviewed, you may begin a conversation (PM) with the reviewer asking them about specific graphic acts or physical/emotional details about the escort. I've certainly been happy to answer any and all questions put to me in private here! ...and I've had quite a few.

 

TruHart1

[MikeyGMin]

I'm fine with discrete reviews. No matter how well written a review is, there is a good chance the details I am interested in are going to be omitted. A review reporting how easy was the contact and the communication, and how satisfactory the connexion and the experience is good enough for me. For details, I prefer to use PMs with other forum members, where we can ask specific questions and really share the experience.

 

I don't need graphic detail about who plugged who, but I do like to see consistent references to the escort being a willing / eager kisser. It's the very most important thing to me and a review is worthless without that information.

[+ quoththeraven]

It seems that way to me too. And, so, in my view, while I fully understand the instinct for caution (as I keep saying), I think there's an odd compromise here, an attempt to walk a tightrope between legal risk and killing the value of the review site. Unfortunately, I think "Guy Fawkes" is between a rock and a hard place on this.

 

 

Since this decision is entirely out of the hands of escorts or clients, and since most of us understand the greater impulse to caution since last August, I suspect it gives pause to some escorts about whether they want reviews and pause to some clients about whether they will ever write another.

 

I agree with you except that I'd describe the two parts of the compromise as not meshing together very well, not as odd.

[+ José Soplanucas]

I don't need graphic detail about who plugged who, but I do like to see consistent references to the escort being a willing / eager kisser. It's the very most important thing to me and a review is worthless without that information.

My point is that the reviews are not written for you and for what you like to know. Kissing is important for you but maybe not for the reviewer. That is why I prefer to ask my questions in private.

[MikeyGMin]

My point is that the reviews are not written for you and for what you like to know. Kissing is important for you but maybe not for the reviewer. That is why I prefer to ask my questions in private.

 

Of course they're written for me -- and everyone else who uses the site. I don't disagree with your approach. If that's your preference...great. My point is that if they're all watered down to the point that you have no idea what you're going to get, they are pretty worthless to a lot of people.

 

My thing happens to be kissing, someone else's might be someone's topping prowess, someone else's might be an eager bottom. If they are all vague and generic and contain none of this detail, they aren't meeting a lot of people's needs. Once you get past whether the pictures are accurate or not the rest is just gooey nonsense -- for a lot of us.

[+ quoththeraven]

If someone sees a review of someone they're interested in and wants to know more, maybe they should PM/converse with the reviewer. Of course, with someone like me, who uses a different and unrelated pseudonym for reviews, it's more difficult, but every time a review of mine appeared, I assumed some people could tell it was mine due to the writing style, others because they knew whose client I was. Or because the first couple of times, I mentioned my gender in the "about me" section.

[+ José Soplanucas]

If someone sees a review of someone they're interested in and wants to know more, maybe they should PM/converse with the reviewer. Of course, with someone like me, who uses a different and unrelated pseudonym for reviews, it's more difficult, but every time a review of mine appeared, I assumed some people could tell it was mine due to the writing style, others because they knew whose client I was. Or because the first couple of times, I mentioned my gender in the "about me" section.

The different nicknames is a problem but not a big one. You just start a 411 thread in the forum when you see an interesting review. I take the tips and recommendations I received here in the forum much more seriously than the info in the reviews.

[+ saminseattle]

My thing happens to be kissing

 

The great thing about kissing is that it's not a crime (assuming it's not some unwelcome assault on other person's mouth), even if an exchange of money is involved.