Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: Proposal: New term for "safe-GFE" style service

  1. #1

    Question Proposal: New term for "safe-GFE" style service

    Now before we have people bash me for legitimizing such services, remember that your preferences are not the only preferences out there. You may prefer a BB with you BJ, but some actually gravitate more towards the CBJ, or lfk, or none at all. Plenty don't enjoy giving DATY so let's not even go there. OK - so how can we make a better term, that gives you the "feeling" of intimacy (non-sexual and sexual), but is completely safe?

    I am liking the idea TLC (tending to loving chubby), it is often associated with caring for someone, but it is also associated with nurses, and health care practitioners. So it really applies if the lady is the kind of lady that can make someone forget they are in a service, and yet, she is careful to play completely safe. Does that make sense? Can we find an acronym that gets that feeling across like the term GFE does?

    Personally, I despise the term GFE, because it is completely undefined, everyone argues over what the heck it means, and that is because it is over-used. Let's not allow my new term to get muddled, so here is my definition. Anyone using my new term incorrectly will be subject to a good old fashioned whipping at triple charge (yea, I know there are some MoFo's out there that will try to take advantage of such an offer ~ lol). If a lady uses the term, remember the code! lol!

    ~LFK (or non at all)
    ~CFS and absolutely no bare contact at all
    ~No BBDATY
    ~There is an element of emotional connection, if you cannot like the client, you shouldn't see him.

    What do you think? This is as much serious as it is Tongue in Cheek (albeit lightly ~ lol)


  2. #2
    I don't believe there is any need for more terms that will only confuse matters further. As far as the tem GFE goes, it IS, very well defined and should be understood by anyone. If they do not understand, they are either not being trueful or are a novice to the hobby. There is nothing wrong with being a non-GFE lady. Many would rather be with a non-GFE. Futhermore, the only probelm has been with those who advertise themselves as GFE and are NOT. Trueth in advertising is all that is needed. There is something for everyone and only honesty will clear the confusion.

  3. #3
    GFE doesnt belong in the description, just say she provides safe service. Nothing wrong with that, Toronto is full of girls who provide this service. From an outsiders point of view I really cant imagine Montreal providing a whole lot of support for non-gfe girls, especially those who want to charge high end fee's.

    Ive seen many non-gfe girls who's looks, attitude and service (that they agreed to give) rocked...but they were all in the LDH catagory. Ive seen Karma couple of years back right when she first started...had a great time (made the mistake of booking her as my first call of the trip basically rushed things a bit). Would I book her again as a non-gfe and be happy with the service? Yes I would...but only if her rate was in the LDH range.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    safe gfe = ordinary. Just the way i see it. Why give a "normal" baseline service a name? Redundant.

    Sure you can say "oh but i will be more affectionate then other ladies..." etc, but bottom line is if we wanted affection we'd have gf's.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Quote Originally Posted by picaron
    safe gfe = ordinary. Just the way i see it. Why give a "normal" baseline service a name? Redundant.
    Except that agency owners like to sell their girls, so they'll put labels to make it look better.
    They used to label digital cameras 'filmless', but they stopped: it sounded negative. The anti-abortion bigots prefer to call themselves 'pro-life'...

    I think safe-GFE is good because it sounds positive (safe is positive, and GFE is an attention grabber) even though WE know it's redundant. Since they'll put something anyway, it's better to have 'safe-GFE' we can decode as 'regular' than other bullshit.

    Just my 2 centavos.
    o . o . b . e

  6. #6
    Veteran of Misadventures EagerBeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Personally I feel the term ``safe GFE`` is a distortion of reality. I have never had a girlfriend in real life who did not give me a . If you took a poll and asked guys, ``did your real life girlfriend insist on giving you a CBJ?``, guess what the overwhelming response would be? I therefore agree with Breadman, that it should be called ``safe service`` not ``safe GFE.``

    As I recall the poster Robin started a similar thread proposing something that he called ``CGFE.`` The response to that thread was largely to ridicule Robin, if I recall correctly. All of these phrases are marketing ploys, but they really should have some basis in reality in terms of being reflective of the actual sexual experience a man has with his real life girlfriend. Otherwise, we are talking about some level of fraud in the use of these terms in the marketing of escorts.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 04-27-2007 at 02:51 PM.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    There is no need to define another new term.

    Given that the predominant service offered by SPs in the MERB/c universe is GFE, it is probably easier to note the difference from GFE rather than defining new terms, e.g. GFE with CBJ.

    There is nothing wrong with providing "safe GFE" services (whether it is CBJ or no BBDATY or no DFK or no LFK etc.), but to define a term for each possible combination is going to be very confusing. For CBJ/BBDATY/DFK/LFK alone there are 16 possible combinations!

    GFE service is very well understood by most of the MERB/c community. The last major discussion was the thread I believe started by Eager Beaver.

    "CFS and absolutely no bare contact at all " is a must for all services!
    Last edited by Rex Kramer; 04-27-2007 at 03:14 PM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by traveller_76
    When I still worked I never advertised any and I never expressed them anywhere on my website. I offered what I offered depending on the client and the mood. I never charged extras. I always asked clients to not give too detailed accounts because I did not want to raise expectations.
    It goes to say how contradicting it is, in a way, to gather reviewers and advertisers under the same umbrella: reviewers describe a service they managed to obtain from such and such SP which can be either corroborated or contradicted by other reviewers. To keep the same language, reviewers are encouraged to use acronyms, each one defined specifically. When a given SP receives several mentions of such and such service (acronym), the said SP is labelled as one who provides the said services as standard practice. Where there's contradiction, we speak of YMMV.

    And then you have the advertisers recuperating all this information for self-endorsement and, in the process, definitions are sometimes corrupted, especially when packaged under consolidated acronyms such as GFE and Safe GFE.

    Where I see a contradiction comes from my sense that, if it wasn't for the purpose of marketing and if it was really left up to them, most SP's would not describe their services at all - as JAG pointed out, at least not with such surgical precision. The fact though that many do describe their services with generic labels like GFE or Safe GFE can be misleading and should not be viewed as anything more than a marketing ploy. The problem is, I'm pretty sure about this, too many reviewers fall for the marketing ploy and tend to be influenced by it while reviewing.

    Personally, I would like to see acronyms disappear completely from agencies and indies banners and websites and leave those to the reviewers.
    Last edited by z/m(Ret); 04-27-2007 at 05:41 PM.

  9. #9
    Damned - how is it that you can explain my thoughts on this better than I!


    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Montana
    Personally, I would like to see acronyms disappear completely from agencies and indies banners and websites and leave those to the reviewers.

  10. #10
    What about this... (Let's KISS - Keep It Stupid Simple)

    GFE Attitude
    GFE Services

    Two different beasts altogether.


    Une belle femme est celle qu'on remarque... Une femme charmante est celle par qui on est remarqué...

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    My 2 cents: For me Save-GFE is CBJ, no daty, LFK and MSOG. If LFK or MSOG is not allowed, that may be called YMMV with GFE-Attitude, or maybe Save-YMMV with GFE-Attitude.

  12. #12

    As I stated, I started this thread as a discussion

    and sort of tongue in cheek.

    Everyone may believe that GFE is well defined, however, I am of a different opinion, and to me it is not. Just look over how many reviews say the girl offers GFE, but she doesn't like to DFK, or except she only offers one SOG, or well, the exceptions go on and on. On the other hand, there are girls who have offered all the GFE services, with out the attitude or "clicking" - generally, they are not labelled GFE, even though their services clearly indicate that they are. Again, another of the changes is those who DO offer GFE services, and even at times the attitude, but charge extra for it. That is why I view it the way I do.

    For this very reason, the term GFE is NOT as valuable as some might think, because what is important changes from guy to guy. Also, you cannot search GFE here without getting threads like this, and anywhere else that those 3 letters might come up. Then they still have to sort through those to find someone who defines GFE the same way they do, without EXCEPTIONS. You see what I mean?

    Any pre-packaged set of acronyms really shouldn't be used by the ladies or their agencies, since the more they are used, the more they become distorted, so a new word is useless... that was my point.

    Thanks for everyones feedback and have a great weekend.


  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by traveller_76
    I always asked clients to not give too detailed accounts because I did not want to raise expectations.
    Some clients will comply to such a demand others won't depending on how strongly pledged one's allegiance to the community is. Prospective clients thrive on details and there's always enough reviewers out there to disclose the juicy details. In a hobbyist way of saying things, we call these details: "information". These boards mission statement demanding to produce and share such information and reviewers being somewhat indebted to each others (some other mental dispositions that would require further analysis probably come into play but that would be another subject), it's difficult to think that false expections are not being raised.

    Solution? A standard disclaimer could be posted as a sticky note stating that all the services described in reviews are YMMV. I mean, I'm surprised by how some hobbyists react sometimes as if they completely fail to recognize that some - say - "chemistries" and - come on let's not fool ourselves! - "clients" are granted more mileage, duh!
    Last edited by z/m(Ret); 04-30-2007 at 02:04 PM.

  14. #14
    I didn`t hobby for a number of years. When I returned a little while ago (and I am considering re-retirement), the biggest confusion seemed to be the blurred line between GFE and PSE. What we old-timers used to call GFE now seems to be called ``PSE`` by a lot of posters.

    What I used to call PSE was TC swallow, come in face, Greek, BS, prostate massage, that sort of thing. Now it seems anyone who gets deep-kissed and a (TC or not) claims it to be a PSE.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by traveller_76
    True. I can imagine that a lot information not 'publicly released' as requested does make its way through the back channels...

    With all the necessary and unnecessary colorations, indeed.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts