Pre-approval Requirements Too Rigorous for Me

[+ glennnn]

"The immaturity on this thread" actually does call into question the maturity level on the thread. Perhaps, you could have said , "the immaturity level on some of this thread", or "the immaturity level of some of these posts". Sorry, I offended you. I didn't intend to do so. By the way, I won't call your intelligence or reading and writing ability into question. I retire from the field vanquished. I respect you.

[TopTierTop]

wow....the immaturity on this thread is disturbing. What about the fact that a business practitioner can set the rules for his business. This is another round of the gay cake story, where you all want to DEMAND that the Evangelical Christian bake you a gay wedding cake, ( while fooling yourself into believing they didn't piss in the frosting for forcing them to do something they don't want to do). On this same line of logic, I should be able to contact TTT and DEMAND that he BOTTOM for me ( which would be magical b.t.w.) ...but guess what ?... His add clearly states TOP. Just because you have cash in hand, it does not give you super powers over other people's lives. You all should just be happy that here ARE SOME service providers around, who will give you a pass on the fact that you're older, and out of shape, and are willing to give you the opportunity to have that b.f. you always wanted, even if it's just for an hour or an evening. Without escorts, you'd be home spanking that monkey for the rest of your life. Let's see a little appreciation for the guys who have minimal standards, instead of condemning those who don't.

Let's not forget, this is the world we live in now. The same world that elects the likes of Donald Trump. I totally agree with your logic and analogies. And as much as I would like to please everyone, I am not willing to risk my reputation as an enthusiastic escort dedicated to satisfying his clients by marketing to a demographic who would not be satisfied with my services. This is why I clearly state who I think my services are best suited to and not an age requirement as some have misinterpreted it. Should I say instead, if you are ok with a less than enthusiastic escort, I would be very happy to take your money and leave you feeling disappointed and cheated? Hey, if that is their thing, by all means, hit me up at any age, size, gender, or species? I won't be able to offer my usual assurance that he or she will be completely satisfied, but he or she will have succeeded in hiring me and I will have put $300 in my pocket. On second thought, no. I'll stick to what is working and what I want to do for a living.

[pubic_assistance]

"The immaturity on this thread" actually does call into question the maturity level on the thread. Perhaps, you could have said , "the immaturity level on some of this thread", or "the immaturity level of some of these posts". Sorry, I offended you. I didn't intend to do so. By the way, I won't call your intelligence or reading and writing ability into question. I retire from the field vanquished. I respect you.

Clearly your grasp of the way the English language works, differs from mine, glennnn. I don't agree with your statement. Sorry. The subject of the sentence is the first introduction and the is: THE IMMATURITY. So THAT is what I am referring to...nothing else. If you don't believe me, google: English Grammar.

[+ glennnn]

@pubic_assistance

 

The silly thing is that we basically agree on this subject. Enough said. No harm done, I hope.

[Jbdesc]

Let's not forget, this is the world we live in now. The same world that elects the likes of Donald Trump. I totally agree with your logic and analogies. And as much as I would like to please everyone, I am not willing to risk my reputation as an enthusiastic escort dedicated to satisfying his clients by marketing to a demographic who would not be satisfied with my services. This is why I clearly state who I think my services are best suited to and not an age requirement as some have misinterpreted it. Should I say instead, if you are ok with a less than enthusiastic escort, I would be very happy to take your money and leave you feeling disappointed and cheated? Hey, if that is their thing, by all means, hit me up at any age, size, gender, or species? I won't be able to offer my usual assurance that he or she will be completely satisfied, but he or she will have succeeded in hiring me and I will have put $300 in my pocket. On second thought, no. I'll stick to what is working and what I want to do for a living.

You offer the cheated and disappointed package?! I've been scouring Rentmen for ages looking for that special! In all seriousness that is a completely valid point. To add to the comparison - one of the reasons I do not hire straight escorts is because I imagine that the feeling, for myself at least, would be disappointed. This is regardless of how well they 'performed'. I like building a strong rapport with people. If it's forced, it's fake - and the experience is null to me.

 

I could be wrong about hiring straight escorts but I've had nothing but good luck hiring gay, and bi thus far. Just like TTT and his screening practices, why change the formula that works for me?

[MiamiLooker]

it's still nowhere near as unattractive as escorts who discriminate against those who aren't white

How is it different?

[+ José Soplanucas]

wow....the immaturity on this thread is disturbing. What about the fact that a business practitioner can set the rules for his business. This is another round of the gay cake story, where you all want to DEMAND that the Evangelical Christian bake you a gay wedding cake, ( while fooling yourself into believing they didn't piss in the frosting for forcing them to do something they don't want to do). On this same line of logic, I should be able to contact TTT and DEMAND that he BOTTOM for me ( which would be magical b.t.w.) ...but guess what ?... His add clearly states TOP. Just because you have cash in hand, it does not give you super powers over other people's lives. You all should just be happy that here ARE SOME service providers around, who will give you a pass on the fact that you're older, and out of shape, and are willing to give you the opportunity to have that b.f. you always wanted, even if it's just for an hour or an evening. Without escorts, you'd be home spanking that monkey for the rest of your life. Let's see a little appreciation for the guys who have minimal standards, instead of condemning those who don't.

 

I agree partially with you. This is like the gay wedding cake, but also it is not.

 

In my opinion, a baker cannot deny anyone a cake if he is not being asked to break the law. We are not a theocracy, religious practice must accept the law of the land or otherwise become an illegal practice. Gay marriage is legal and therefore if you are a private baker you must bake a cake if a gay couple wants your service, or you should not have a regular bakery business; if you are a public servant, you must provide whatever service any couple needs to get married beyond being gay or straight, or you cannot be a public servant and should not be in the city hall payroll.

Said that, I would appreciate the honesty of the baker when I want to order my cake and he or she tells me my lifestyle is not approved. As a client, I would not ask somebody who hates me to cook for me. I think the reasons are obvious.

 

In the case of escorting, the situation is different. I'm not paying for the acts, I am paying for his time. The escort cannot discriminate against me for any reason if I want to hire his time. But of course, I want to enjoy my time in some particular ways, so we communicate our preferences not because of a negative discriminatory intention, but because of a proactive and positive knowledge of our human nature and the challenges we face to interact. Some of us hire for company, some for just sex, most of us for something in between. As you say I cannot ask to bottom to somebody who does not enjoy it, just as I cannot ask to be sophisticated and cultured to somebody who does not have an education.

 

I highly appreciate it when the escort answers my questions before I asked them. Just as I highly appreciate the baker being open about his religious bigotry.

[pubic_assistance]

Political correctness prevents you from knowing your enemies. Tell me you "hate fags and you won't bake me a cake", is better than tasting that whiff of urine in the icing, you made for "those dirty faggots".

[TopTierTop]

I agree partially with you. This is like the gay wedding cake, but also it is not.

 

In my opinion, a baker cannot deny anyone a cake if he is not being asked to break the law. We are not a theocracy, religious practice must accept the law of the land or otherwise become an illegal practice. Gay marriage is legal and therefore if you are a private baker you must bake a cake if a gay couple wants your service, or you should not have a regular bakery business; if you are a public servant, you must provide whatever service any couple needs to get married beyond being gay or straight, or you cannot be a public servant and should not be in the city hall payroll.

Said that, I would appreciate the honesty of the baker when I want to order my cake and he or she tells me my lifestyle is not approved. As a client, I would not ask somebody who hates me to cook for me. I think the reasons are obvious.

 

In the case of escorting, the situation is different. I'm not paying for the acts, I am paying for his time. The escort cannot discriminate against me for any reason if I want to hire his time. But of course, I want to enjoy my time in some particular ways, so we communicate our preferences not because a negative discriminatory intention, but because of a proactive and positive knowledge of our human nature and the challenges we face to interact. Some of us hire for company, some for just sex, most of us for something in between. As you say I cannot ask to bottom to somebody who does not enjoy it, just as I cannot ask to be sophisticated and cultured to somebody who does not have an education.

 

I highly appreciate it when the escort answers my questions before I asked them. Just as I highly appreciate the bakery being open about his religious bigotry.

Very well said and enjoyable to read. You make a really good point. I really enjoy the company of men significantly older than me. My husband is twice my age and he is a handsome, wonderful, and supportive person.

[jjkrkwood]

Paying for "TIME" is simply a smokescreen to avoid the illegality of the act of prostitution, but in most cases we all know WHAT you are paying for. In very FEW cases has an escort ever arrived and just sat on the bed with you watching the clock tick down. so really, lets try to be honest and real here. But when you hire, you should always get what you agreed on, and are paying for. As that saying goes, "No tickee, no washee"....

[jjkrkwood]

honey my clients never pay for sex , all they want is my companionship... oh and if my cock slides in their mouth or ass by accident then theirs nothing I can do about it;).... oh and if they place some money in my pocket "as allowance" its only kind of me to take it

 

 

EXACTLY sweetheart, I totally understand !

[pubic_assistance]

Keeping in mind that prostitution is still illegal in most places, in the United States, I like to believe that I am never in the company of criminals just horny young men....

[jjkrkwood]

Keeping in mind that prostitution is still illegal in most places, in the United States, I like to believe that I am never in the company of criminals just horny young men....

 

Perhaps you meant "hungry" young men" ? Unless of course you meant horny for those green Dolla's ? I cant imagine they are horny for MOST of the clients they are required to see ?

[+ poolboy48220]

So just for argument's sake, if prostitution were legal, would it mean that escorts were obliged to take all clients? Discuss.

[+ José Soplanucas]

So just for argument's sake, if prostitution were legal, would it mean that escorts were obliged to take all clients? Discuss.

 

Theoretically yes, but there is a common sense caveat. Think of the restaurant business. A Chinese restaurant has to seat anyone who wants to, but if you are looking for a table there, you do not expect to be served Italian. So you just go to wherever you want is served, the restaurants advertise clearly their menu. And it is not only the food, but also the environment. If you do not want kids around, don't go to a family restaurant; if you like casual, don't go to a formal diner.

Similarly, an escort would have to take any clients, but he/she would advertise the menu and anything else. No surprises, no complains.

[MikeyGMin]

So just for argument's sake, if prostitution were legal, would it mean that escorts were obliged to take all clients? Discuss.

 

I doubt it. Not with such a personal service. Start with gender. I don't think anyone would expect a gay escort to sleep with women. You can just sort of expand it out from there.

 

Also, there are plenty of trendy bars that exclude people based on appearance alone. They seem to be getting away with that just fine.

[mike carey]

I doubt it. Not with such a personal service. Start with gender. I don't think anyone would expect a gay escort to sleep with women. You can just sort of expand it out from there.

I'm rerunning the whole religious freedom argument through my head atm. I can accept the public accommodations argument that if you offer a service to the public you have to offer it to all. For me, a hotel room or a meeting/function room is unambiguous, you can't stop black or gay people from using it. Flowers, it's not so clear, but to some extent flowers are flowers, if you plan to use them for a straight wedding or a satanic mass, they are still flowers. Sell the fucking flowers and stop quibbling. For a cake the provider has to decorate it to suit the occasion, and I don't see why a baker should be forced to decorate one with swastikas, so why should they be forced to decorate it for a marriage ceremony with which they disagree on principle, The difference is that in some cases, the purpose for which the 'public accommodation' is used doesn't require the provider to consider who is using it (and therefore shouldn't be able to decline its use), but in others (like cakes) the provider has to actively participate, for example in the way the cake is decorated, so perhaps should be able to decline.

[+ José Soplanucas]

I'm rerunning the whole religious freedom argument through my head atm. I can accept the public accommodations argument that if you offer a service to the public you have to offer it to all. For me, a hotel room or a meeting/function room is unambiguous, you can't stop black or gay people from using it. Flowers, it's not so clear, but to some extent flowers are flowers, if you plan to use them for a straight wedding or a satanic mass, they are still flowers. Sell the fucking flowers and stop quibbling. For a cake the provider has to decorate it to suit the occasion, and I don't see why a baker should be forced to decorate one with swastikas, so why should they be forced to decorate it for a marriage ceremony with which they disagree on principle, The difference is that in some cases, the purpose for which the 'public accommodation' is used doesn't require the provider to consider who is using it (and therefore shouldn't be able to decline its use), but in others (like cakes) the provider has to actively participate, for example in the way the cake is decorated, so perhaps should be able to decline.

 

Do you really think the swasticas in the cake can be compared to a pro gay marriage message? Isn't the difference obvious? In one hait is in the message, in the other one it is in the reader of the message.

[mike carey]

Do you really think the swasticas in the cake can be compared to a pro gay marriage message? Isn't the difference obvious? In one hait is in the message, in the other one it is in the reader of the message.

No I don't think they are comparable, but I do think that the idea that the cake baker has the right to say, 'No, I will not put that message on my cake' has a parallel in a way that someone renting a room doesn't.

[MikeyGMin]

Do you really think the swasticas in the cake can be compared to a pro gay marriage message? Isn't the difference obvious? In one hait is in the message, in the other one it is in the reader of the message.

 

Unfortunately, yes. There are otherwise good people, who because of their religious beliefs, could feel very much the same about both subjects.

[+ José Soplanucas]

I'm not a lawyer, but I disagree. It is a weird discussion, thought. Why would I insist on hiring a baker for my wedding cake who obviously would not do his best?

[mike carey]

Why would I insist on hiring a baker for my wedding cake who obviously would not do his best?

I think that is the key point, if the provider who objects can fuck you over, why would you insist that they provide the service.

[pubic_assistance]

Perhaps you meant "hungry" young men" ? Unless of course you meant horny for those green Dolla's ? I cant imagine they are horny for MOST of the clients they are required to see ?

I am in excellent shape, and don't hire people for repeats unless they are genuinely turned on as well.

[pubic_assistance]

I think that is the key point, if the provider who objects can fuck you over, why would you insist that they provide the service.

I agree with mike carey in his simple conclusion. WHY would your FORCE anyone to provide you a service ? It's ridiculous. KNOW THY ENEMY....so you can AVOID them, not do business with them.

[jjkrkwood]

I am in excellent shape, and don't hire people for repeats unless they are genuinely turned on as well.

 

PA, my comment was a general statement, not specifically directed at you. And being in excellent shape is only 1 element of attractiveness. It doesnt necessarily mean the escort will be turned on by you. And most escorts IMO view this as a job that pays the rent and not recreational pleasure. the best escorts will always make you believe they are turned-on, and that insures a faithful, repeat client. Nothing wrong with that.