Scott Bradley's comments on being a whore

[Guest Kenny021]

Scott Bradley, writing in his recent column on"http://videoview2000.homestead.com/Release.html" has some interesting comments to make concerning being a "whore". His opening paragraph specifically addresses a client who periodically sends him demeaning e-mails. Bradley attributes this clients' abuse, among other reasons, to: "...he will ocassionally email me with demeaning comments which I feel pretty sure are instigated by the teams of bitter old men with no lives on the hooboy message boards." Interesting to note that these "bitter old men with no lives" are Mr. Bradley's sole source of income at the moment. Perhaps he should reconsider his description of them IF HE INTENDS TO CONTINUE IN THAT PROFESSION.

[woodlawn]

Thanks for posting that link. I found the column interesting and not too badly written.

 

A couple of things seem remarkable to me. First, why would this guy think that his client's decision to send him emails was "instigated" by anyone else? Doesn't he think the client is capable of sending an email by himself?

 

Second, I was struck by his assertion that escorts don't really think about what they're doing when they have sex with a client. I don't say he is wrong about that, but it is worth noting that he is suggesting escorts feel there is something revolting about what they do. He compares escorts to the shoes that people rent at bowling alleys, which is a comparison I have not heard before. He suggests that not only escorts but also clients might be revolted if they actually think about what they're doing. Interesting.

 

His summary of his reasons for being an escort, "ease and money," are of course quite familiar to those of us who have seen discussions of this issue here before.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

I suspect he is reacting, in part, to the recent post here that appeared to be an axe job on him. Maybe it is a bit of an overreaction, but he is young (and maybe senstive).

[jackhammer91406]

Tried this a minute ago, and it didn't post, so if it shows up twice, it is not for emphasis.

I read the thread along with the archived "releases" on another site.

First, I'll say that I don't know diddly about the "he who shall not be named" fuss or the other guy "David _____" so that should take me out of the doghouse with LOSB (lovers of Scott Bradley) . I also have no axe to grind with the kid. Hope he succeeds at whatever he decides he want to do with his life.

But when he references Hooboy message center and refers to us as bitter old men, I have to say reality must be different for him than for the rest of us.

He says if all the bad things said about him are true, how come he hasn't any NO SHOw reviews on the Hooboy site?

Well, the truth is: if you click on the No Shows at the top banner, true his name doesn't show up (why is that Hoo, Daddy, deej?), but if you click his reviews in the escort review section , he does have a NO SHow review. I know, I wrote it and took a lot of heat from LOSB when it appeared. The next day he called me and we talked for a while and things were square between us, so I am not here to change that or bad mouth him. But in his column he mentions several times about "the real story" so here it is Scott:

You were a NO SHOW in Atlanta last Nov. 2002, I am not a bitter (see Apple Jack's bite of the APPLE) old (felt 10 years younger when I got cruised by a 24 year old gym hottie last night) man (ok you got me there, I am one of those as some replies to the Apple Jack's thread point out).

Thanks for letting me tell the real story

[guyinsf]

It's too bad when one generalizes from one's own feelings. There certainly are escorts who do feel "bad" about what they are doing; this often comes across in what they write or how they attempt to market themselves. I know the economy is bad across the U.S. but it seems like a lot of youngish guys are attempting to "escort" simply because they think it is easy money (or they are having a difficult time finding another job). I'm not interested in hiring someone who goes out of his way to say that he "normally doesn't do this" or is "doing this out of desperation." On the other hand, it is clear that there are some escorts who don't feel "bad" about what they are doing.

 

I think the same is true of clients.

[guyinsf]

It's too bad when one generalizes from one's own feelings. There certainly are escorts who do feel "bad" about what they are doing; this often comes across in what they write or how they attempt to market themselves. I know the economy is bad across the U.S. but it seems like a lot of youngish guys are attempting to "escort" simply because they think it is easy money (or they are having a difficult time finding another job). I'm not interested in hiring someone who goes out of his way to say that he "normally doesn't do this" or is "doing this out of desperation." On the other hand, it is clear that there are some escorts who don't feel "bad" about what they are doing.

 

I think the same is true of clients.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

This is my favorite part:

 

I am not praising the fact that I am a whore, I simply set out to acknowledge whether being an escort and porn model makes me a whore, and what do you know? It does, but allow me to illustrate my point with a final thought.

 

Lets say one day while working you are distracted from what you are doing and you subsequently put a pen, pencil or some other desktop item in your pocket. Forgetting the item is there you go on about your day and probably will not think about the item in your pocket until later that evening when you have arrived home. Now by definition you are a thief.

 

Uh, no.

 

A thief is someone who steals and the Webster definition of "steal" is: "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep".

 

In your own scenario you said the person put the pen in their pocket because they were DISTRACTED and then FORGOT it was there. There was no INTENT to appropriate it. That isn't stealing asshole, that's being scatterbrained!

 

Correctively yours,

 

FFF

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

This is my favorite part:

 

I am not praising the fact that I am a whore, I simply set out to acknowledge whether being an escort and porn model makes me a whore, and what do you know? It does, but allow me to illustrate my point with a final thought.

 

Lets say one day while working you are distracted from what you are doing and you subsequently put a pen, pencil or some other desktop item in your pocket. Forgetting the item is there you go on about your day and probably will not think about the item in your pocket until later that evening when you have arrived home. Now by definition you are a thief.

 

Uh, no.

 

A thief is someone who steals and the Webster definition of "steal" is: "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep".

 

In your own scenario you said the person put the pen in their pocket because they were DISTRACTED and then FORGOT it was there. There was no INTENT to appropriate it. That isn't stealing asshole, that's being scatterbrained!

 

Correctively yours,

 

FFF

[BewareofNick]

>This is my favorite part:

>

>I am not praising the fact that I am a whore, I simply set

>out to acknowledge whether being an escort and porn model

>makes me a whore, and what do you know? It does, but allow me

>to illustrate my point with a final thought.

 

 

FFF, I cannot believe you let this part pass without some sort of comment, such as, "It's good that you acknowledge what you are. I have spent many an hour on this board pontificating on that very point."

 

>That isn't

>stealing asshole, that's being scatterbrained!

 

Those of us who have met Scott can tell you that being scatterbrained IS something else he is besides being a whore (He's blond, too!)

[BewareofNick]

>This is my favorite part:

>

>I am not praising the fact that I am a whore, I simply set

>out to acknowledge whether being an escort and porn model

>makes me a whore, and what do you know? It does, but allow me

>to illustrate my point with a final thought.

 

 

FFF, I cannot believe you let this part pass without some sort of comment, such as, "It's good that you acknowledge what you are. I have spent many an hour on this board pontificating on that very point."

 

>That isn't

>stealing asshole, that's being scatterbrained!

 

Those of us who have met Scott can tell you that being scatterbrained IS something else he is besides being a whore (He's blond, too!)

[jackhammer91406]

BoN

I KNEW I had heard that from somewhere. Guess i should have changed my review from "parties too much" to "can't find the party"

 

 

[jackhammer91406]

BoN

I KNEW I had heard that from somewhere. Guess i should have changed my review from "parties too much" to "can't find the party"

 

 

[VaHawk]

Perhaps we should be questioning/debating/discussing not WHAT was

said, but rather WHY it was said. After the lashing taken by this guy on a thread recently, to have the courage to say what he said, with the expected, as we are now seeing, backlash, imho, speaks volumes! and indicates that perhaps he isn't the only escort who feels this way, but so far is the only one with enough chutzpah to state the facts. If this is the case then maybe we need to

step back for a moment and take a good hard look at ourselves.

 

I don't believe we should lose sight of the fact that there are two legitimate points of view in this business. It is imo, a symbiotic relationship where both parts are needed to sustain the whole. If either part tries to dominate or depart, then the entity

itself dies.

 

One pattern I recently noticed, and I believe I commented on

previously, was the rash of threads that were opened attacking/questioning individual escorts and or their acts/policies. And I believe that included one

against this guy. I will not even try to state the

who or why of those threads as I would not presume to be privy to

the inside workings of this industry, and as such will

leave that discussion to those in the know.

 

What I will comment on, and of course this is just my

opinion, is all the negativity and damage that such

threads can cause. I remember the negative thread

about Brad Rudolph that was started by someone who had

never met or been with him and offered as evidence of

his opinion, only the facts that all his reviews were

by first timers under 40. Now what was the point of

that thread, unless it was to have others, once again

who had never met the guy, to pick up the theme and

post yet even more negative comments, based not on

fact but on some "compelling need" to opine about

an escort that they know nothing about.

 

Now clients castigating each other in the message

center is one thing, but factlessly doing that to the

escorts is something quite different. Outside of some

rather recent attempts by other sites to provide

reviews, it is a fact that this site is the place

where clients go to get reviews of the escorts.

Whether that is fair or not is a moot point, but what

is not debatable is that the reviews posted here and

comments made in the message center can profoundly

affect both an escort's reputation and ultimately his

business, not only with potential clientele but with

existing clients also.

 

To solicit the opinions of fellow posters about an escort if they have been with him is certainly valid, but to offer an opinion of that escort, whether that opinion is praiseworthy or denigrating is not valid unless you have been with the escort. Once again, imo, that is just one step removed from submitting a review of an escort you have never been with or who turned out to be a noshow. According to the rules of this site such reviews are not allowable and a noshow section is also provided.

 

If you have been with an escort and wish to comment then post a review and give the escort the chance to respond to your review. Opening a negative thread about the escort is uncalled for and not the purpose of the forums. Let's be honest and admit what the client response would be if the escort tried to defend himself in that situation. I doubt the client reaction would be positive thus negating the escort's rights to present his side.

 

All these negative attack posts about escorts under these situations is totally unfair and I could see why it would make the escorts feel the way Scott states in his column.

 

How would you like it if someone opened a web site where your clients could review you. If for example you were an attorney and decided not to take on a client, would you want someone posting negative statements about your abilities and professionalism on such a site. Don't you think that would be unfair and impact your business? Or even worse have someone call you a "shyster" which is no more of a negative, derogatory term for an attorney as "whore" is for an escort.

 

What would you do, if all the escorts got disgusted and walked away? Then we'd all be back to the escort hiring "dark ages".

All the chickens leave the coop? Nothing meaner than "hungry Hawk"!

 

This is a great site and as such is a benefit to both escorts and clients, but only if played fair on both sides.

[VaHawk]

Perhaps we should be questioning/debating/discussing not WHAT was

said, but rather WHY it was said. After the lashing taken by this guy on a thread recently, to have the courage to say what he said, with the expected, as we are now seeing, backlash, imho, speaks volumes! and indicates that perhaps he isn't the only escort who feels this way, but so far is the only one with enough chutzpah to state the facts. If this is the case then maybe we need to

step back for a moment and take a good hard look at ourselves.

 

I don't believe we should lose sight of the fact that there are two legitimate points of view in this business. It is imo, a symbiotic relationship where both parts are needed to sustain the whole. If either part tries to dominate or depart, then the entity

itself dies.

 

One pattern I recently noticed, and I believe I commented on

previously, was the rash of threads that were opened attacking/questioning individual escorts and or their acts/policies. And I believe that included one

against this guy. I will not even try to state the

who or why of those threads as I would not presume to be privy to

the inside workings of this industry, and as such will

leave that discussion to those in the know.

 

What I will comment on, and of course this is just my

opinion, is all the negativity and damage that such

threads can cause. I remember the negative thread

about Brad Rudolph that was started by someone who had

never met or been with him and offered as evidence of

his opinion, only the facts that all his reviews were

by first timers under 40. Now what was the point of

that thread, unless it was to have others, once again

who had never met the guy, to pick up the theme and

post yet even more negative comments, based not on

fact but on some "compelling need" to opine about

an escort that they know nothing about.

 

Now clients castigating each other in the message

center is one thing, but factlessly doing that to the

escorts is something quite different. Outside of some

rather recent attempts by other sites to provide

reviews, it is a fact that this site is the place

where clients go to get reviews of the escorts.

Whether that is fair or not is a moot point, but what

is not debatable is that the reviews posted here and

comments made in the message center can profoundly

affect both an escort's reputation and ultimately his

business, not only with potential clientele but with

existing clients also.

 

To solicit the opinions of fellow posters about an escort if they have been with him is certainly valid, but to offer an opinion of that escort, whether that opinion is praiseworthy or denigrating is not valid unless you have been with the escort. Once again, imo, that is just one step removed from submitting a review of an escort you have never been with or who turned out to be a noshow. According to the rules of this site such reviews are not allowable and a noshow section is also provided.

 

If you have been with an escort and wish to comment then post a review and give the escort the chance to respond to your review. Opening a negative thread about the escort is uncalled for and not the purpose of the forums. Let's be honest and admit what the client response would be if the escort tried to defend himself in that situation. I doubt the client reaction would be positive thus negating the escort's rights to present his side.

 

All these negative attack posts about escorts under these situations is totally unfair and I could see why it would make the escorts feel the way Scott states in his column.

 

How would you like it if someone opened a web site where your clients could review you. If for example you were an attorney and decided not to take on a client, would you want someone posting negative statements about your abilities and professionalism on such a site. Don't you think that would be unfair and impact your business? Or even worse have someone call you a "shyster" which is no more of a negative, derogatory term for an attorney as "whore" is for an escort.

 

What would you do, if all the escorts got disgusted and walked away? Then we'd all be back to the escort hiring "dark ages".

All the chickens leave the coop? Nothing meaner than "hungry Hawk"!

 

This is a great site and as such is a benefit to both escorts and clients, but only if played fair on both sides.

[jackhammer91406]

VaHawk,

I guess I don't learn my lessons very well, because I think you are telling me I have no business saying anything about Scott since he was a no show. You may be right. As I said in my first post on this thread, I don't really have an axe to grind and I have spoken by phone with him after the last brouhaha and we settled things fine. At that time he had quit escorting and was adamant about it. I am not stung personally because of all the clients he didn't see, I am one. I am fine with that. I am also fine with him going back into business if it's what he wants to do. No problem. But his outrage at my no show review, and his supporter's outrage at my statements about "maybe he parties too much" was severe, and my comments were meant as an explanantion of his absence, not condemnation. Anyone can stay out too late and feel lousy the next day. I am told the word "party" is a euphemyism for "drugs". Ok, that's something else entirely from what I meant. BUT, his flippant response saying people...." should think before they write something they know nothing about..." , well that is a two way street also and it got me a little frustrated with the kid when I read his opinion that all the men on this board were "bitter old men" . Now who should think before they write something like that? VH, you know how much I care about you and the other great guys on this board and the board itself. If I am wrong in responding when I see Scott say things like this, fine, I can take the correction. But as one who was attacked before for stating the truth, I still say this kid needs to get his act together before he cast stones. The idea that we should let no show behavior go, because it puts a negative spotlight on an escort...well, I thought that was the point of the review section of this board. Since Hooboy (or whoever else is responsible) has not seen fit to list Scott in the no show section, I felt justified to pipe up when Scott emphasizes as evidence of his veracity that he has no such no show reviews on this board, if that is true, it is a Clinton type technicality.

 

 

Ready to take the whip now .....I will assume the position...

[jackhammer91406]

VaHawk,

I guess I don't learn my lessons very well, because I think you are telling me I have no business saying anything about Scott since he was a no show. You may be right. As I said in my first post on this thread, I don't really have an axe to grind and I have spoken by phone with him after the last brouhaha and we settled things fine. At that time he had quit escorting and was adamant about it. I am not stung personally because of all the clients he didn't see, I am one. I am fine with that. I am also fine with him going back into business if it's what he wants to do. No problem. But his outrage at my no show review, and his supporter's outrage at my statements about "maybe he parties too much" was severe, and my comments were meant as an explanantion of his absence, not condemnation. Anyone can stay out too late and feel lousy the next day. I am told the word "party" is a euphemyism for "drugs". Ok, that's something else entirely from what I meant. BUT, his flippant response saying people...." should think before they write something they know nothing about..." , well that is a two way street also and it got me a little frustrated with the kid when I read his opinion that all the men on this board were "bitter old men" . Now who should think before they write something like that? VH, you know how much I care about you and the other great guys on this board and the board itself. If I am wrong in responding when I see Scott say things like this, fine, I can take the correction. But as one who was attacked before for stating the truth, I still say this kid needs to get his act together before he cast stones. The idea that we should let no show behavior go, because it puts a negative spotlight on an escort...well, I thought that was the point of the review section of this board. Since Hooboy (or whoever else is responsible) has not seen fit to list Scott in the no show section, I felt justified to pipe up when Scott emphasizes as evidence of his veracity that he has no such no show reviews on this board, if that is true, it is a Clinton type technicality.

 

 

Ready to take the whip now .....I will assume the position...

[VaHawk]

Well, Jachammer, my statements had nothing to do with your review of this guy. I based my statements only on what is stated in the faq section and others that HB himself made, that reviews of noshows would not be posted. The fact that your's was, is in no way a reflection on your review or your right to post it.

 

I agree that the thread opened by his defenders attacking your review, is just as wrong and inappropriate as people opening unwarranted threads attacking escorts. Two wrongs never make a right as they say, and if I gave you the opposite impression it was not meant that way. That goes back to what I was saying about fair play on both sides. Your comments on this thread about him being a noshow are imo, more than appropriate.

[VaHawk]

Well, Jachammer, my statements had nothing to do with your review of this guy. I based my statements only on what is stated in the faq section and others that HB himself made, that reviews of noshows would not be posted. The fact that your's was, is in no way a reflection on your review or your right to post it.

 

I agree that the thread opened by his defenders attacking your review, is just as wrong and inappropriate as people opening unwarranted threads attacking escorts. Two wrongs never make a right as they say, and if I gave you the opposite impression it was not meant that way. That goes back to what I was saying about fair play on both sides. Your comments on this thread about him being a noshow are imo, more than appropriate.

[Traveller]

>All these negative attack posts about escorts under these

>situations is totally unfair and I could see why it would make

>the escorts feel the way Scott states in his column.

 

Of the numerous escorts I've hired, I can only name one (and that was due to his own self immolation) that has given a rat's ass what's posted on this Board. They could care less. Reviews possibly an iota more.

 

>How would you like it if someone opened a web site where your

>clients could review you. If for example you were an attorney

>and decided not to take on a client, would you want someone

>posting negative statements about your abilities and

>professionalism on such a site. Don't you think that would be

>unfair and impact your business? Or even worse have someone

>call you a "shyster" which is no more of a negative,

>derogatory term for an attorney as "whore" is for an escort.

 

Client's review me all of the time. That's how I get referrals. I don't take Democrats as clients. They're too much like sheep.

 

>What would you do, if all the escorts got disgusted and walked

>away? Then we'd all be back to the escort hiring "dark

>ages".

 

Oh my. Then I guess we'd be left with only the John's, who actually review the escorts and upon whose reviews we base on judgments. Light the torches.

 

>This is a great site and as such is a benefit to both escorts

>and clients, but only if played fair on both sides.

 

Only wimps and Belgium could believe in fairness.

 

Later.

 

PS. Bombs should dropping by Saint Paddy's Day. I hope we've learned our lesson and treat Baghdad like Dresden or Tokyo. I believe I'd love the smell of burning Muslims.

[Traveller]

>All these negative attack posts about escorts under these

>situations is totally unfair and I could see why it would make

>the escorts feel the way Scott states in his column.

 

Of the numerous escorts I've hired, I can only name one (and that was due to his own self immolation) that has given a rat's ass what's posted on this Board. They could care less. Reviews possibly an iota more.

 

>How would you like it if someone opened a web site where your

>clients could review you. If for example you were an attorney

>and decided not to take on a client, would you want someone

>posting negative statements about your abilities and

>professionalism on such a site. Don't you think that would be

>unfair and impact your business? Or even worse have someone

>call you a "shyster" which is no more of a negative,

>derogatory term for an attorney as "whore" is for an escort.

 

Client's review me all of the time. That's how I get referrals. I don't take Democrats as clients. They're too much like sheep.

 

>What would you do, if all the escorts got disgusted and walked

>away? Then we'd all be back to the escort hiring "dark

>ages".

 

Oh my. Then I guess we'd be left with only the John's, who actually review the escorts and upon whose reviews we base on judgments. Light the torches.

 

>This is a great site and as such is a benefit to both escorts

>and clients, but only if played fair on both sides.

 

Only wimps and Belgium could believe in fairness.

 

Later.

 

PS. Bombs should dropping by Saint Paddy's Day. I hope we've learned our lesson and treat Baghdad like Dresden or Tokyo. I believe I'd love the smell of burning Muslims.

[VaHawk]

>Of the numerous escorts I've hired, I can only name one (and

>that was due to his own self immolation) that has given a

>rat's ass what's posted on this Board. They could care less.

>Reviews possibly an iota more.

 

No arguement here, as I bow to your much more vast experience in this area.

 

>I don't take Democrats as clients. They're too

>much like sheep.

 

Now this could be taken as an all out endorsement of the superior intellectual and moral ethics of Democrats.

 

>Oh my. Then I guess we'd be left with only the John's, who

>actually review the escorts and upon whose reviews we base on

>judgments. Light the torches.

 

Gee wasn't that my whole point or did I not make that clear? No, then so be it. Thank you for enlightening me as to what I should do to make my hiring decisions as we all use the same criteria and are looking for the same thing and can find all the info we need in the reviews alone. Such a generalization, but then again Republicans are always good at generalizations and assuming that they speak for everyone. Why light torches, when all those Republican points of light are everywhere?

 

 

>PS. Bombs should dropping by Saint Paddy's Day. I hope we've

>learned our lesson and treat Baghdad like Dresden or Tokyo. I

>believe I'd love the smell of burning Muslims.

 

And I suppose such SICK statements make you a real macho man rather than a wimp? Unless this is supposed to be some kind of weak attempt at a joke, then why don't you get real up close and personal and visit Baghdad so you don't miss any of the intoxicating aroma from your safe, far at a distance location. Here's one from me to you that you are free to use, although I'm sure it's not up to your standards "What do you call a burnt Muslim? Flafel!".

[VaHawk]

>Of the numerous escorts I've hired, I can only name one (and

>that was due to his own self immolation) that has given a

>rat's ass what's posted on this Board. They could care less.

>Reviews possibly an iota more.

 

No arguement here, as I bow to your much more vast experience in this area.

 

>I don't take Democrats as clients. They're too

>much like sheep.

 

Now this could be taken as an all out endorsement of the superior intellectual and moral ethics of Democrats.

 

>Oh my. Then I guess we'd be left with only the John's, who

>actually review the escorts and upon whose reviews we base on

>judgments. Light the torches.

 

Gee wasn't that my whole point or did I not make that clear? No, then so be it. Thank you for enlightening me as to what I should do to make my hiring decisions as we all use the same criteria and are looking for the same thing and can find all the info we need in the reviews alone. Such a generalization, but then again Republicans are always good at generalizations and assuming that they speak for everyone. Why light torches, when all those Republican points of light are everywhere?

 

 

>PS. Bombs should dropping by Saint Paddy's Day. I hope we've

>learned our lesson and treat Baghdad like Dresden or Tokyo. I

>believe I'd love the smell of burning Muslims.

 

And I suppose such SICK statements make you a real macho man rather than a wimp? Unless this is supposed to be some kind of weak attempt at a joke, then why don't you get real up close and personal and visit Baghdad so you don't miss any of the intoxicating aroma from your safe, far at a distance location. Here's one from me to you that you are free to use, although I'm sure it's not up to your standards "What do you call a burnt Muslim? Flafel!".

[+ Lucky]

It is a sick and inflammatory statement. Traveller should consider posting only about dicks and drugs, otherwise we might see him for a lunatic.

[+ Lucky]

It is a sick and inflammatory statement. Traveller should consider posting only about dicks and drugs, otherwise we might see him for a lunatic.

[Flower]

I agree Lucky--I was enjoying his post until he said that--now his posts will be forever tainted with his apparent bigotry and misplaced hatred--reminds me of something (uugg x( ) Adrian would say. :-(