Client Expectation

[Guest Skeptic]

I know this is a topic that's been aired before, but reading today's reviews reminded me of how difficult it must be for escorts to meet many expectations clients have--or even to understand what those expectations are.

 

Today we have a review from 'mb' regarding a Gaiety dancer, Ray. When all is said and done (and especially when closely analyzed), this is a very favorable review. And yet mb is actually registering keen disappointment. Why?

 

He reports that in a phone conversation prior to the get-together, Ray seemed agreeable to the notion of 'mutual oral'. If that was PRECISELY the term used, without any elaboration whatsoever, I think there's a real possibility of misunderstanding, even if the escort's native language is English. (I'm serious: for many people, especially str8 guys, who'd instantly understand '69,'--which isn't exactly the same thing, I know--a term like 'mutual oral' might be just a bit too clinical.) And if the guy is from, say, Brazil or French-speaking Canada, the chances of misunderstanding are obviously much higher.

 

MB goes on to say that Ray, despite his unwillingness to give head, was perfectly happy to have HIS dick sucked, and sufficiently into it to shoot a copious load. (As for MB himself being sufficiently into it, I've got to wonder about anyone who can report that an escort has a 9-inch dick, yet not know whether he was cut or uncut. Doesn't sound like any cocksucking enthusiasts I know.)

 

But the most astounding part is MB saying (twice, I think) that this Ray is therefore ONLY INTO WORSHIP. Excuse me: a Gaiety dancer who thinks of himself as str8, has a really big cock, is happy to be blown to the point of orgasm, and charges only $200, shouldn't be confused with a BB who stands just there, flexes, and allows you to palpate his muscles. (As Joan Rivers would say: 'Am I right, audience?')

 

So here we have a client misunderstanding and misusing the concept of 'worship' in offering a 'warning' to other clients!

 

I think we need a little justice here--so consider this post the moral equivalent of 'Ray Responds'. And we also need to be a lot more precise in describing both expectations and outcomes in these matters.

 

(PS to Paul Revere: See? I'm doing MY bit to knock Todd's tiresome ass out of first place on today's boards!)

[Guest Skeptic]

Addendum

 

With all due respect to Boston Guy's excellent post in the ass-that-will-not-quit thread, I'm adding this pointless postscript to my own posting--just to put 'Client Expectation' back on top!

 

(It's to be hoped that there'll be other intervening posts, too.)

[Guest RobPA]

RE: Addendum

 

Well said Skeptic. Sounded to me like a great encounter and that the reviewer had a good time.

The bad thing is that many people (myself included) scan a review and when we see "no" under the expectations or "live up" question, stop reading and then move on to the next review.

If not for you starting this thread I would have written Ray off as someone to avoid. I hope people read the whole review.

[Guest paulnyc]

RE: Addendum

 

Why are we so critical of those who write negative reviews and why are we so eager to excuse escort behavior. Do you notice how few negative reviews there are. I believe this results from the fact that those who have negative experiences are fearful of incurring the wrath of all the apologists who so quickly excuse any escort behavior whatsoever. The guy who wrote the review on Ray describes it as a negative experience for him. Now, here we are trying to second quess him and tell him that he really did have a good time. Who better would know how this reviewer was feeling than the reviewer himself? Or are we so much in awe of these beautiful young men that whatever they with or to us is acceptable?

[Guest MrB]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

Thank you for your thoughts, Skeptic, but actually, I think I was quite objective in my review of Ray. I rated him as "very good" rather than "outstanding" because there was that one point where he fell short of perfection. If he did not want to perform oral, he should not have promised. Hence, "Did he live up to what he promised? No" In our phone call, we were quite clear about what was going to happen, and it did not. But Ray really is a very nice guy. For money, he'll show you a good time alright, too, but I did not feel he had his heart in it as you do when you're with a really good escort. The reason I would not personally hire him again is precisely that he did not totally level with me. If you are so certain you know better than me how good a time I had, by all means go and hire him yourself. I actually have a good time myself, but I was expecting more than what I got--only because of what we had agreed on the phone.

My guess would be that Ray is really straight but into being worshipped so much, it actually turns him on. I never said there's anything wrong with that. In fact, if that's what you're into, I would highly recommend him. Whether or not he has foreskin is in no way a big deal to me, so feel free to find out for yourself.

As an afterthought, why does HooBoy have all these really specific questions when you submit a review, you think... surely so we can be really specific, precise and objective in our reviews. I tried my best, sorry if I failed you.

[Guest Ken]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

I thoroughly agree with PaulNYC. Don't speak for the reviewer....he is able to do that for himself, which he obviously has done in his latest reply. I also agree that there are far to many "outstanding" reviews. Again, as Paul states, it seems that if someone gives a lackluster review to someone who usually gets raves, many people jump all over him. Come on, Does Roger Ebert give "thumbs up" to all movies or stars?. Skeptic writes: "

He reports that in a phone conversation prior to the get-together, Ray seemed agreeable to the notion of 'mutual oral'. If that

was PRECISELY the term used, without any elaboration whatsoever, I think there's a real possibility of misunderstanding,

even if the escort's native language is English. MISUNDERSTANDING?????WHAT'S TO MISUNDERSTAND ABOUT THE WORD "MUTUAL"?

If that was the agreement and it was not met, than it's not living up to the agreement.

[Bilbo]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

My, how the world turns. I never thought that I would see the day that Skeptic was called an apologist for an escort.

[Guest Skeptic]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

Reading these responses from Paul, Ken, & the reviewer himself, mb, made me go straight back to the review in question and print it out--just so it would be ever before me as I reply.

 

Having reread it, I'm standing by my first posting.

 

Paul, it seems to me, is missing the point. I don't presume to know what the reviewer is feeling; I am reacting only to what he has written--and I find it both puzzling and misleading. Nor am I an apologist for the escort (in this case, someone I can't even recall) any more than I am a foe to negative commentor unfavorable reviews. (Clearly, you don't know me!)

 

MB takes a needlessly victimized stance--and that "I'm-sorry-if-I-failed-you" bit is straight out of Billyboy's playbook of meek replies. I'm not attacking him, or his subjectivity, or his sense of fairness. If anything, I'm attacking what I consider a misuse of language--the damning phrase being 'for worship only'.

 

A straight guy who lets you roam freely with mouth and hand over 'one of the best bodies and biggest dicks ever,' whose looks are described as 'magnificent,' and who creates'a Tom of Finland' fantasy while having you suck him to orgasm can't be all bad, I think. (Hell, even mb concedes he's a 'nice guy'. . .)

 

But, mb--here's the point--he's not someone just being 'worshipped'. He's HAVING SEX with you. And it's far more 'real' (to use your word) than the play-acting you seem to prefer. (Could you really want your nipples licked by someone who has to be told to do it?) When a straight guy is having sex with you 'strictly as trade,' he's at least expressing himself as a sexual animal in the sincerest way possible.

 

And it can be as passionately put as any of the Harlequin romance stuff that figures in many of the reviews guys like mb write. The problem comes from taking a phrase like 'worship only' from the argot of BB admirers--who thus classify those musclegods who will only let you watch, and selectively touch, as they flex--and misapplying it here. The result is a wildly conflicted review, starting with the top stats. But I must admit that mb was more or less forced into it, as he points out, by Hooboy's particular format.

 

Ken, at least, stays with the other real point here: did Ray misrepresent himself? Well, there are only two people who know (though not with perfect certainty), and we've only heard from one. Misunderstanding 'mutual oral' (especially if glided over hurriedly as part of a lengthy wish-list)isn't as implausible as is claimed; for one thing, the 'mutual' part might have been muffled. And something tells me that a stud of Ray's clearly superior qualities (as described by mb himself)doesn't need to make empty promises to get business.

 

Finally, I can't help but protest the moral drawn by mb at the end of his peculiar review:

 

"If you're looking for more than worship--maybe you should not be shopping at the Gaiety."

 

He goes on to complain that "nobody there sells real sex--they just don't have the time." The second part of this inane generalization is beied by MB's own tale of seeing Ray outside a Gaiety workweek, (coming, in fact, still richly aromatic from his martial arts class.) As for the first part, if MB would truly love to read reviews that prove him wrong, he need look no further than the long and sensually twisted thread about Gaiety dancers of the past on this or the other board.

[Guest MrB]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

Jeez, Skeptic, so now you don't mind anymore if I won't hire Ray again? I'm glad you're letting me decide at least that.

About the worship thing--Ray did not want to talk about what he does or does not do when I spoke to him at the Gaiety. When we spoke on the phone, the bit about mutual oral was ALL I requested, because that is what I felt like doing that day. I'm sorry I did not tape the conversation, but it went something like this:

ME: What I am interested in today is basically just some mutual oral. Can you do that?

RAY: Yeah

ME: You do?

RAY: Sure.

After which we agreed to meet. If I'm paying for a service, is it OK to say what I want? Is it OK to say I did not get it?

None of this means I did not enjoy myself at all. I did not rate him "total loss" or "average", but actually "very good".

None of this means I do not like and fancy Ray. He's gorgeous, and I said so in my review. I've had lots of far worse experiences from the Gaiety (which explain the editorial on the subject), but I keep going back.

My review of Max Grand got posted today. I rated him "oustanding", not just because I had more fun with him than with Ray, but also because he fully delivered on everything he promised.

[Guest Skeptic]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

Sorry, mb, but you're setting up a straw-man victory/conclusion with that last little flourish of yours: never, ever, from my first post to the last, did I suggest that I knew better than you how you reacted to being with Ray; nor need you ask sarcastically if it's OK with me that you choose not to see him again. As you know very well, neither of those issues figure in anything I said.

 

What I DID say was that you unfairly classifed someone as good 'for worship only' (probably out of ignorance of what the term is commonly accepted to mean)--and it's this central issue you have never yet addressed, much less acknowledged.

 

As for the other, more important, issue (the assertion that Ray lied to you on the phone), it seems to me that if this were clearly the case--and 'mutual oral' was what you 'felt like' that day (!)-- you ought to have called the session to a halt the very moment he declined to do what you say he had promised. (BTW, are you now saying that kissing and romancing your nipples was NOT brought up in your phone conversation? Or was that to be understood under the heading 'mutual oral'?) Accepting the 'lie,' while having a grand time (on RAY's terms)--and then filing what looks like a weirdly self-contradictory review--doesn't strike me as fully responsible, grown-up behavior. Ergo, my first post.

 

I'm eager to read your Max Grand review. Whatever it says, however, can't possibly obviate the issues you are, for the third time, side-stepping in your most recent posting on the Ray review.

[Guest MrB]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

I'm not sidestepping anything. My review was not as black and white as you would liked to have it seen, that's all. I do not really understand where you get the idea from that I was complaining anyway about my session with Ray. When it became clear that he was not going to "do" anything except let me suck him (I did not know, of course, that he was also going to come), I agree I could have ended the session. In fact, the thought crossed my mind, but I decided against it for two good reasons: one, he's a magnificent piece of work such as you do not find them every day. Two, he's very big--to the point of being intimidating--you would not want to get on the wrong side of him.

 

For the upteenth time, I rated him as "very good"--in spite of him not delivering on what we agreed. And where's the dictionary that says how and when I can use the word worship? It was a clear case of me paying money to service him. Fun as that may be, it's not what I shopped for.

 

I also never claimed that Ray lied to me. The thing MAY still have been a misunderstanding, after all, he is Brazilian and English is not his native language, although he is quite fluent. None of that changes the facts--he did not deliver what he promised. Or do you think I should get a written statement in future?

 

I cannot be held responsible for the conclusions that people jump at after not fully reading my review. Anyone who read my review and wanted to get the deal I got would not be discouraged from paying the money to service him.

 

I'd really prefer to end this discussion here, because defending my point of view tends to make me overstate Ray's shortcomings. Our thread here could be damaging to his business. I still do not think my review was.

[bill]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

MB, I agree with you about Max Grand. He is exceptional and beautiful.

 

Ray is also a handsome man. I have seen Ray and I think it was likely a language misunderstanding. That doesn't change your disappointment that you expressed your expectations and they weren't met, but I haven't found Ray to lie about those things to set up an appointment.

 

Take care and if you see Max Grand again, update your review so we can hear more great things about him. Especially his left nipple.

[Guest MrB]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

Thanks, Bill, yes, Max Grand is a great guy, isn't he? If I ever get a chance to get together with him again, I certainly will. And those nipples, esp. the left one. Should have mentioned that in the review, really. You seem to have some one-on-one experience with him--don't you want to submit a review yourself? Do you see him regularly?

As I've said, there may have been a misunderstanding between Ray and myself. I have no way of knowing and I honestly do not see how I could have avoided it then. When you were with him, again, what was your experience like? Perhaps if you posted a second review, it could allay Skeptic's concerns...

[Guest Skeptic]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

Mb, my concerns were never about RAY, but about your REVIEW of Ray--in that it started, even before the narrative, with a bald assertion that he didn't live up to what he said and was good 'for worship only'.

 

It's at this point that many would stop reading, an issue fully taken up & dealt with by an earlier poster.

 

Only a dictionary of gay slang would have an entry explaining the use of 'worship' in the context of hiring an escort. As I said, its meaning is very plain in BB-enthusiast parlance, and you, however innocently, adopted the phrase & misused it to Ray's disadvantage.

 

I agree that it's time for this particular thread to end. I'm not interested in trying to persuade you of anything; I'm only interested in justice for Ray. And quite frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed that hardly anyone has understood or sided with what I've been saying.

 

In any case, in winding up my final post on the subject, I can't help mentioning that you took a significantly long time in admitting that Ray is NOT (as I opined in my very first post) a native English speaker.

[Guest MrB]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

Please let's make this the last one.

Why don't you go back and read what you wrote now: "my concerns were never about RAY" and also "I'm only interested in justice for Ray"--which is it going to be? You keep wanting to rewrite my review for me. Well sorry, that cannot be done. Why don't you post your own.

 

Where did I ever say he's a native speaker of English? He's from Brazil as we all know from NYO's show reviews. Everybody speaks Portuguese there, at least last time I checked. And Ray's English is quite good--have you spoken to him?

 

Anyway, who cares if the deal I got is called worshipping or something else. Let it be clear to all that the man did not suck my dick. That he looks great. And incidentally, we never talked about anal--I cannot be sure if he won't top. For my future reference, how should I have answered the top/bottom question when I submitted the review?

[Paul Revere]

Stop it! Both of you.

 

End this silly discussion. I read the review, and it seemed perfectly clear to me what happened, and what Ray's strong points were, and why Mr. B was disappointed. It seems like a very honest review, which we use to help us make our decisions.

[Guest Jake]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

And quite frankly, I'm surprised and

>disappointed that hardly anyone has

>understood or sided with what

>I've been saying.

 

Perhaps we're all still working on the cancer cure.

[Guest Newbie]

!RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

I'm not sure what Jake meant by the cancer-cure remark, but, for what it's worth, I happen to understand & agree with Skeptic's basic point--that MrB did use 'worship only' very misleadingly (unintentionally to be sure), and that it was much more likely that Ray misunderstood 'mutual oral' than that he deliberately lied about what he'd do or wouldn't do. MrB never really dealt with those very clear issues, while taking an oddly literal-minded approach to everything else.

 

But Skeptic shouldn't be surprised that no one here was too eager to side with him. In making his case, he was a bit too candid about an issue which many would prefer not to confront. When he asked "Do you really want to have you nipples licked by someone who has to be told to do it?" he was making a 'get-REALLY-real-girl' call to those of us who think that 'romantic' interaction that can be had only by paying for it is 'real sex' somehow. By his standards (and don't forget, he likes ONLY trade) that would no more be 'real sex' than it would be 'real affection.'

Whether the point he's making is true or not, it's hardly the most diplomatic thing to say to people who are big on cuddling, kissing, mutual this & that, and Lord knows what other tender intimacies with prostitutes. And I've found that it's those guys who have a longtime instictive loathing for Skeptic and virtually everything he says.

 

It seems to me, he really ought to understand that basic dynamic by now!

[Guest Jake]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

What I meant, dude, is: who cares? In the grand scheme of things it's very unimportant.

[Bilbo]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

I don't like imprecision in language, either. Can we really expect that a man who refuses to use our language - ie the proper use of "for worship only" - respects words enough to remember exactly what he said to anyone even an escort over the phone? And, yes, to some of us - actors, poets, communicators, etc. - word are damn important. Keep your tools and they will keep you, so to speak.

It reminds me of the time a decade or two back when my little sister was about to be married. One the next to last day of the wedding week, she was off to some hen party and her tall, gorgeous redhead of a fiance (and yes I still have a bit of a crush on him) decided that he was going to repay me for being willing to go into a series of straight bars with them by going for one afternoon beer in a gay bar with me. I loved the idea but when I looked at his handsome tush, I asked him to please either take the red handkerchief out of his pocket or at least transfer it to his left pocket out of his right. He became a little indignant because he had never told me how to dress going into one of his bars. I said, Okeydokey, but keep Real Close to me. I don't remember (I don't think I did) if I felt close enough to him to explain what I was trying to protect him from at the time.

[Guest Newbie]

RE: Client Expectation from Ray reviewer MB

 

Lovely story, Bilbo! Made me think of the special erotic fascination brothers-in-law have for so many of us. (They're right up there with such fantasy figures as cops, hardhats, and the high school football coach.)

 

But to go back to the matter of saying what you mean, I wonder if Jake didn't mean a lot more than he said in that snappy comeback to Skeptic. If he's going to dismiss what was under discussion as 'unimportant'--unworthy of his consideration (or anyone else's here)--what must he think about the REAL trivia posted all over the place? Or was he really just trying to be nasty to Skeptic?