Buyer Beware

[+ Lucky]

RE: Of course...

 

That self-same original poster and his Virginia defender went awfully silent after his fraud was exposed...

[AllDaySucker]

RE: Some clarifications

 

No, I won't excuse you, because you are off the wall and out of line. To say nothing of gratuitously insulting.

 

Two (not one, but two) previous posters (and Note: neither one was me) pointed out that you probably engage in "sexual tourism" too. But nobody, including me, said that was bad. You use that label as an insult, and call it an aspersion. Others here (the two posters I referred to, me, and most others as well) do not seem to be using it that way.

 

Despite the fact that those things were said by two (not one, but two) other posters, neither of which is me, you accuse me of having said it. As someone said in at least one of your previous dust-ups, you make wild, unfounded (and misdirected) accusations.

 

My observation was not about "sexual tourism." It was about your habit of making uncivil and insulting critical outbursts at others for what you claim they do, while doing the same things yourself. I made my observation because it is true. You certainly do make a habit of criticizing others. Everybody notices that. Two other posters pointed out that you are probably doing the same thing that you have been railing against in this thread, and the corresponding situation has been noted before by others with respect to other rants of yours. I merely pointed out the connection among those situations.

 

You do seem to have a habit of making uncivil and insulting outbursts about what other people are doing or about what you claim other people are doing, and then you get caught with your pants down doing the same thing. I'm surprised you haven't learned by now to stop doing it.

 

You seem to have done the same thing several times before, as others have pointed out earlier. You were doing it again in this thread regarding "sexual tourism." And then you also did it a separate second time just above, in your post attacking me: You complain about someone distorting your handle and label it "name calling" and "attacking the poster." (Note, by the way, that it was not me who did that, although you seem to be accusing me of that, too.) But note that you did the same thing yourself when you referred to Lucky as "Clucky" right here in this thread (at least until Hooboy edited your post and changed it). So, yes, you excoriate others for doing what you yourself do. QED.

 

You repeatedly leap (not just "jump") to irrational unfounded conclusions based on nothing but your groundless imaginings and desire to lash out. No evidence, no statements, no facts, nothing. Just bile.

 

You don't know the first thing about me. Zero. Yet you are willing to claim vehemently and confidently that I "plan my travel/vacations around sex." How do you know that?

 

You call me "obviously...guilty" of "sexual tourism" and imagine that I am "compelled to attack you." Neither is true, but even if they were, how would you know that? All you know about me is my one-sentence observation based on reading the public postings on this message board. And I think you may be reading too much into posters' handles.

 

While I don't advocate "sexual tourism," I don't condemn it either, and I don't consider that someone who engages in it is Evil. So I don't think it is something to be "guilty" about, and it would not make me "compelled to attack you." And I don't find it a criticism of you to say that you engage in "sexual tourism." The criticism is not that at all. It has nothing to do with "sexual tourism" per se. It's that you rail against others for doing or allegedly doing something which you do yourself. You're like the minister who preaches hellfire and damnation against sinners and then turns out to be banging the choir director's wife and skimming money from the collection plate.

 

You imagine that you have "hit too close to home" for my "personal comfort." Since I don't engage in what you describe and wrongly accuse me of, don't condemn it anyway, and wouldn't feel guilty about it if I did, I don't see how you could have "hit too close to home" or how that would provoke me to do anything. You project your own feelings and attitudes onto everyone else, and your defensive reaction, as well as your original outburst, shows eloquently that you are the one who feels guilty. Like the loudly homophobic man who is trying to suppress his own feelings. Your outburst, your attack on me, and your unfounded accusations, on the other hand, did cause me to make this response.

 

I don't see many other posters on this thread saying that sexual tourism is evil, so I don't see trilingual's or Lucky's pointing out that you do it too as a slur or an attack. You take it that way because you meant it that way when you hurled it at others, even though you had no basis for doing so.

 

You blithely tar everyone on this forum with being "sexual tourists." How do you know what they are/were doing in Brazil? Yes, you know that they are/were interested in having sex there. But how do you know that they were not also doing other things? Look at the wealth of information and discussion of Brazil and Brazilian culture in this forum, and the questions, suggestions and advice about what to do in Brazil. That alone puts the lie to your holier-than-thou claims.

 

Of course, you always have pure motives for travelling, so if you have sex when you travel it's not "sexual tourism." But if others have sex when they travel it's "sexual tourism," right?

 

I think I recall that at least once you commented that you had flown an escort to where you are or would be (or maybe just that you had gone elsewhere for the purpose of having an escort engagement). Guess what? That's "sexual tourism," even by your definition. The purpose of the trip was to have sex, whether the trip was yours or his. Even if you stay in the same place and bring him to you. You're just changing the venue.

 

Are there "sexual tourists" out there? Sure.

Is that name-calling or a slur? Most people here don't think so. And the people who said that you do it too weren't saying it because they thought it was a slur, they were saying it to show the contradiction. But you take it as a slur, even though they don't, because you use it that way, and you take umbrage. That's the difference.

 

You have professed elsewhere not to be interested in travel to Brazil, and you have apparently not read much of what is in this forum. Yet, you come here to attack those that are here for being "sexual tourists," and then you get all huffy and cry "foul" when they give you back some of your own medicine.

 

As the man said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

 

You will probably reply to this and attack me again. Have fun.

I have already wasted more time than it is worth writing this reply to your attack on me, and I'm not going to waste any more. I don't need to. Everybody can already see what you are doing and how you operate.

[+ Axiom2001]

RE: Some clarifications

 

>Rampo- your narrative is so accurate, honest and analytical.

>Thanks for the observations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:9 :9 :9 :9 :-) :-) :-) :-) :9 :9 :9 :9

 

Your thoughts are well-taken! Obrigado! Thank you! Gracias!

[+ Lucky]

RE: Some clarifications

 

Why it was just the other day that the Hawk called me shallow and pathetic for starting a nice thread about another poster's contributions here. Yet he then has the nerve to complain about incivility. I will admit though that I thought "Clucky" was cute.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: I'm so sick of puritanism I could vomit...

 

P.S.: Thanks, imrthr, for posting the unadulterated article so we could compare. I forgot to say that above.

[VaHawk]

RE: Of course...

 

Who went silent? Thanks to imrthr who posted the original article so that I could see that it was indeed edited by the op. That was all I was asking. How droll of me to want to see the facts, and unlike you just launch into an attack!

 

I know you are SO BRILLIANT, SO FUNNY and SO CLEVER, but your humor is trite, boring and seldom funny. Of course that is just the opinion of a VaWack that I would much rather be than another Yankee Hack!

 

Please don't reply with another trivial little bon mot. I would hate for you to use my reply to up your post count to next 1000th count, as then I would have to see another shallow useless thread celebrating inanity!

[VaHawk]

RE: Some clarifications

 

Everyone thinks I'm attacking them for being a sexual tourist, but I'm not doing that at all!!! I don't give a shit where you travel or don't travel and/or why you travel there, as that is your own business and not mine!

 

You are the one that launched an attack against me personally, before you so astutlely deleted your post!

 

I was only stating that there are INDEED people who travel to other countries/cities for the express purpose of engaging in sex. THAT MAKES THOSE PEOPLE SEXUAL TOURISTS! and if you want to stick your head in the ground ala the proverbial ostrich and deny that fact, then by all means do so! Once again, I personally DON'T GIVE A SHIT! what other people do, but IT IS A FACT that there are sexual tourists!

 

And I'm not living in the proverbial glass house tossing bricks and I'm NOT moralizing as I'm certainly the LAST person on Earth that could cast aspersions on others' morals. But, then again, pointing out documentated facts on this forum, on sexual tourism, entitles you and others to make accusations against me, especially since as you so eloquently point out YOU DON'T FUCKING KNOW ME! And why does a simple statement of fact that there are sexual tourists, mean I'm attacking anyone on this site????????

[VaHawk]

RE: Some clarifications

 

BTW: I LOVE the fact that HB feels it necessary to come here and edit my calling you "Clucky" in response to you calling me VaWack, but didn't edit your name-calling slur against me. Talk about double standards.

[VaHawk]

RE: Some clarifications

 

I never called YOU shallow and pathetic. I only called your post shallow!!!! But of course, I now understand that on this mc, that critiquing someone's post equates to a personal slam about someone personally. Thank God you people aren't in the entertainment industry as you'd never survive an honest critique of your performance!

[Guest rampo]

RE: Some clarifications

 

>BTW: I LOVE the fact that HB feels it necessary to come here

>and edit my calling you "Clucky" in response to you calling me

>VaWack, but didn't edit your name-calling slur against me.

>Talk about double standards.

 

It would appear that Lucky's "slur" was edited a couple of minutes before your's was.

[JamesK840]

RE: Some clarifications

 

Ok, so with sexual tourism now defined (for whomever needed the definition...), the next question is, what is the point of all that/why is it bad? Especially in a case such as Brazil, where prostitution is actually legal, and of course assuming we're not talking pederasts... This large source of income they would otherwise not have hurts them how (as opposed to the vague general arguments against prostitution in general, what is it about prostitution with foreigners that's inherently evil?)?

[+ Lucky]

RE: Some clarifications

 

I think it is chicken hawks who give sex tourism a bad name. Most people when they go on vacation hope to have sex, whether it is a honeymoon or a spring break, sex livens things up. But those hawks who prey on the young and vulnerable poor children travel solely to find areas where their exploits have not yet been discovered by the authorities, or where the police can be bought off to look the other way.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Some clarifications

 

>Everyone thinks I'm attacking them for being a sexual

>tourist, but I'm not doing that at all!!!

 

Well, yes you were. See below.

 

An observation:

If 1 or 2 people think that, they might be misunderstanding or misinterpreting. If everyone thinks it there must be a more objective reason. Maybe it's in the angry, wrought-up, accusatory tone and the sweeping overgeneralizations and groundless accusations that you make.

 

And a correction:

>I was only stating that there are INDEED people who travel to

>other countries/cities for the express purpose of engaging in

>sex.

>...

>And I'm not living in the proverbial glass house tossing

>bricks and I'm NOT moralizing

 

Well, no, you said a fair amount more than that. And you are moralizing.

 

From post #2 on this thread: VaHawk Thu Feb-12-04 12:16 AM:

>>How many people go to those places primarily and foremost to engage

>>in sexual activites at CHEAP rates with very young boys and girls.

>>One only has to read this very forum to see evidence of this!

 

And from post #4 on this thread: VaHawk Thu Feb-12-04 01:29 AM:

>>Sexual exploitation, not including pedophilia can not be denied as

>>the driving force behind many, many, many tourists going to Brazil.

>>"More bang for the buck"?? How can you deny that? Just look at the

>>threads on this very forum! Or just look at the recent thread on

>>hiring multiple escorts for an orgy session, where at least one

>>poster advocated that for less money than using the US escorts

>>required, that the author of the thread could go to Rio and hire even

>>a larger quantity of cheap young Brazilians. Isn't that exploitation?

 

And before you post a reply, please keep the following in mind. The point here is *not* whether or not what you said is true. The point is that you are viewing "sexual tourism" negatively and saying more than simply that there exist people who are "sexual tourists," you are accusing at least some people on this site of being "sexual tourists" and thereby casting them too in a negative light, and you are moralizing. Maybe all of what you said is correct, but that's not the point. The point is that you did those things, which is why everyone thinks that you did, and that you deny doing any of those things, which is what is incorrect about what you now say.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Some clarifications

 

>BTW: I LOVE the fact that HB feels it necessary to come here

>and edit my calling you "Clucky" in response to you calling me

>VaWack, but didn't edit your name-calling slur against me.

>Talk about double standards.

 

Well, you seem to be making another false claim.

 

Lucky's labelling you "VaWack" was *also* edited and changed by Hooboy, and that was even *before* he edited and changed your label "Clucky" for Lucky. A simple look at the posts in question shows:

 

post #9 on this thread:

Lucky Thu Feb-12-04 10:33 AM (edited) Fri Feb-13-04 12:32 PM by HooBoy

 

post #13 on this thread:

VaHawk Thu Feb-12-04 07:38 PM (edited) Fri Feb-13-04 12:35 PM by HooBoy

 

If you would just stop going off half-cocked, both you and the rest of us could avoid all of this wrangling.

[AllDaySucker]

RE: Another clarification

 

>Alldaysucker, I went to your response to see what you had

>written. Apparently the moderator deemed it an inappropriate

>retort, thus deleted it.

 

Axiom, I deleted that post myself, as trilingual has correctly surmised in another post. As you can see, it shows that it was edited by me, and not by one of the moderators. It was something that I decided was not very important, and had already been mentioned by someone else anyway. Sorry if I caused you or anyone else any concern over the content or the possibility of censorship.

[AllDaySucker]

RE: Some clarifications

 

As I said, I'm not going to respond to your remarks on the previous issues here, especially since someone else has already done so quite well.

 

But you included an entirely new, and entirely false, allegation which is unrelated to the earlier issues, and which I cannot allow to pass.

 

>You are the one that launched an attack against me personally,

>before you so astutlely deleted your post!

 

Wrong again.

 

Aside from the fact that I did not "launch an attack against you personally," but merely drew attention to the fact that something noticed by some others here fits into a series of similar occurrences pointed out earlier by different others, your claim that I deleted my post, and any inference that you are trying to create from that piece of misinformation, is entirely false. I did no such thing, nor did anyone else.

 

My original post that you got so worked up about consists of just one line of (my) text, although it stands under the quote of someone else's post, and it still stands proudly in its place above, where it has been since it first appeared. In case you are having trouble seeing it, and so that nobody will be taken in by your misinformation, it says

 

"VaHawk seems to make a habit of excoriating others for doing what he himself does."

[Mavica]

Looking elsewhere

 

"The odd thing is that the "sex tourists" probably spend more time with the local population than the regular tourists."

 

I disagree with this statement. My observation of many contributors to this message board is that they know very, very, little about Rio . . . outside of the commercial sex saunas. This is indeed a good site from which one can learn about hustlers and paying for sex, however, to learn about Rio in general . . . one needs to look elsewhere.

[VaHawk]

RE: If the shoe fits

 

I will after this sentence, confine my words to one syllable four letter words, as that seems to be the only level of communications (oooh, give me a quarter) that you can comprehend (oooh, make that 50 cents!).

 

Dick, cock, butt, fuck, suck, back door tour! Shit, piss, then much more! Take from poor. Your butt sore? Leak, seep? Dick dead? Don't weep! HELL burn less? Nope, just your wish! Boys? Toys? Make that your tour, don't talk shit that isn't mine.

 

Don't drop dead, just give head! Gave five bills? Ones? Sure! USER!!

 

Hawk!

[trilingual]

RE: Looking elsewhere

 

>This is indeed a good site from which one can learn

>about hustlers and paying for sex, however, to learn about Rio

>in general . . . one needs to look elsewhere.

 

That's kind of stating the obvious, isn't it? The site is called M4M Escort Reviews! It's about commercial sex. So it isn't surprising that most of the postings are about the site's principal topic and raison-d'etre.

 

On the other hand, anyone who reads through the postings that have been made on the site (Mavica obviously hasn't) can see that there is a wealth of information about many other subjects, including accommodations, restaurants, side-trips, cultural attractions, Brazilian music, Carnival, etc. The postings are a good place to start learning something about Rio and Brazil, as well as other places in Latin America, particularly Argentina.

 

It's true, though, that for more comprehensive, organized descriptions of non-escort matters other sites and books are the best resource. First timers are urged to buy a good guide book (I like the Rough Guide best) and to view other sites, many of which are mentioned or cited in other postings on this board.

[Guest rampo]

RE: Looking elsewhere

 

Just as trilingual points out, this is a message board primarily devoted to escorts and gay sex - there has been a lot of useful information posted about Rio in this particular forum, but it is hardly surprising that a great deal of the discussion revolves around sauna boys and sex.

I've been to Rio once and to Thailand much more often. Right or wrong, my comments were based on my observations while there, not on what I have read in this forum.

[Guest Tomcal_]

RE: I will finally jump in to this...

 

I have hesitated to get into this discussion, because, it has gone on and on.... but as one of the(the only person) mentioned in the original post, let me say this

I take no offense at being called a "sexual tourist" that's what I am when I go to Rio! I have done the Tijunca rain forest tour, done the cable car ride, seen the statue of Christ(way too many times), etc. But...I go to Rio (8 times int he past 2 years) for the sex. First, because I like Latin guys(as anyone who know me can testify), Second, I go to NYC, Miami often for business and there are alot of Latin guys in both cities, but the difference is in Rio there are 30 - 40 available in one place. As opposed to NYC for example, where I go to Splash, and search through the crowd and a MAYBE will find one guy who I connect with...in Rio whole different story!! Certainly the cost also plays a part, but is this exploitation?? I don't know, we could debate this ad nauseum... I think my customers in my business exploit me.. I date often here in the states, but I go to rio for SEX! with no committments, no feelings of obligations and I know I am contributing to the economy...ALOT!!

anyhow, [b I enjoy VAHawks postsb],I enjoy VAHawks posts I think he always brings discussion and makes this board intersting!! You had better be on the top of your game if you are going to debate him! I like that. How boring this place would be with out guys like him!

I also don't feel I have to defend what, who I do to anyone(unless of course they are paying for it..which so far hasn't happened! LOL)

This is a site about escorts, and yet everyone gets their panties in a uproar when someone says anything about the fact we are buying sex, whether one person calls it "econominc advantage" or "sexual exploitation", bottom line...I am having a great time, and I dont' personally care what the fuck anyone says...especially anoyomous handles on this board!

[straightshooter]

.

 

This thread's original post was a forged copy of a news item. Enough said.