Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: BBFS and Requests for Same

  1. #1
    It's a whole new ballgame
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Where I belong.
    Posts
    6,327

    BBFS and Requests for Same

    Yesterday, I posted some second-hand information suggesting that a certain provider had a performed BBFS. Shortly thereafter I learned this to be untrue and removed the post. While it was only up for 10-15 minutes, this woman has now received multiple requests for bareback service.

    First I want to publicly apologize to her. While it is important that those offering BBFS and those requesting it be exposed, it's also as important that careers not be compromised by the spread of inaccurate information. I was to quick to jump the gun in posting information I hadn't verified. I've also suggested to her that any further requests for such service should be passed on to other providers so that those requesting it might be exposed.

    I'd also suggest to any other providers that any requests for BBFS be passed on to agencies and indies alike for the protection of all.
    Last edited by rumpleforeskiin; 01-02-2008 at 05:31 PM.
    The mounties always get their man.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    6' under
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by rumpleforeskiin
    Yesterday, I posted some second-hand information...
    your profile says you're 10 yrs old. what the hell did you think we expected from you? no apology nec'y.

  3. #3
    I haven't checked a few days and all hells got lose.. man, I cannot leave you guys along for a few days... what thread are you talking about?

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by orallover
    what thread are you talking about?
    Probabaly in the best interst of the SP the thread should not be revealed, it would potentially generate more requests for BBFS... sadly.

  5. #5
    It's a whole new ballgame
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Where I belong.
    Posts
    6,327
    Quote Originally Posted by hormone
    Probabaly in the best interst of the SP the thread should not be revealed, it would potentially generate more requests for BBFS... sadly.
    Bingo. But moot, as it has been deleted.
    The mounties always get their man.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by hormone
    Probabaly in the best interst of the SP the thread should not be revealed, it would potentially generate more requests for BBFS... sadly.
    The shitheads who make requests for BBFS don't wait for threads to be revealed or not. They just try their luck every time they have a chance.

    Moreover, if the information, true or false, is out there, as it seems to be, be assured that BBFS seekers were already made aware of it well before the said thread was posted.

    Rumples, it's a good thing you apologized but you shouldn't accept to take all the blame.

    As I'm writing this, the gossip that has been brought to your attention is circulating through the back channels. You know who the dispensers are, you know, the usual suspects.
    Last edited by z/m(Ret); 01-03-2008 at 07:22 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Montana
    The shitheads who make requests for BBFS don't wait for threads to be revealed or not. They just try their luck every time they have a chance.

    Moreover, if the information, true or false, is out there, as it seems to be, be assured that BBFS seekers were already made aware of it well before the said thread was posted.
    While I 100% agree that the dumb-asses who want BBFS don't need a thread to send SP messages, some may be dumber/ dormant and just prompted by such a thread, as explained by Rumple (i.e. time connection between is post and the SP being innundated with messages). Shows that there is a "publication" effect... sadly.

  8. #8
    The BBFS jackasses will always find a way. There must be some way to screen them. I really hope the agency owners will put a screening process in place. Ask the girls to report these requests and ban the idiots. I for one will stand behind this (for what it's worth). This really pisses me off! and you guys have to know it pisses of the majority of this community. Keep the girls safe and keep us safe. Damn!
    Confucius say: Man who take woman into house on side of hill - not on level.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Regular Guy
    [...]There must be some way to screen them. I really hope the agency owners will put a screening process in place. [...]
    What would be agency owners incentive for them to implement screening processes of such nature?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Montana
    What would be agency owners incentive for them to implement screening processes of such nature?
    At the risk of stating the obvious:

    Well I assume your question is meant to imply that there is no economic benefit for agency owners in the sense that they actually have no way to police the practice in any true practical sense of the word. I suppose for any agency owner it is a given that their girls should not entertain any thought of BBFS. Since they are not in the room, well who knows eh? Or are you asking who cares if it goes on anyway? As long as the girls just keep those dollars rolling in (owners perspective).
    Now if I am not mistaken I believe that at least one agency owner does attempt to screen for clients who are proven bad risks (i.e. abusive behaviours), at least that is the impression I am under. Screening may be an imperfect solution at best but might be an idea to start somewhere. I can't, for the life of me, see where anyone could possibly discount the practice as being irrelevant to the success of their business or a that it is a negative in every sense of the word. Nor can I see where any agency owner could not see the merit of using every and all means at their disposal to discourage same. It is pretty clear that posters to this thread consider those who ask for such services as little better than vermin for the potential risk they expose all of us to.

    Now have I missed a salient point here? Look, this activity (hobbying) is at best unregulated and owners and clients can ultimately take any tack they like on this issue. I have a hunch the girls don't care for having pressure put on them to do this and the agency owners can also see the hazards. Only my opinion but if I were an owner and had one of the girls report such a "request" or "demand" I just might be inclined to try my best to refuse future service to this client. How practical would such an initiative be? I don't know. But I feel it is in everyone's best interests that attention should be paid.
    Am I being naive? Well the nice thing about this board is that it is a medium for an exchange of ideas and expressions of sentiment.
    Last edited by Regular Guy; 01-03-2008 at 11:14 PM.
    Confucius say: Man who take woman into house on side of hill - not on level.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Roland
    Interesting point ,Ziggy.The SP's would get the requests and refuse to partake in BBFS, but get on.... with the other stuff.They could mention the request as a complaint to the owners, but , it's the SPs that have the control...or do they ?

    Don't the SPs have the right to refuse a client ?
    Yes but sometimes with consequences.

  12. #12

    Smile See Doc's post #12 for examples

    Quote Originally Posted by Regular Guy
    At the risk of stating the obvious:

    Well I assume your question is meant to imply that there is no economic benefit for agency owners in the sense that they actually have no way to police the practice in any true practical sense of the word. I suppose for any agency owner it is a given that their girls should not entertain any thought of BBFS. Since they are not in the room, well who knows eh? Or are you asking who cares if it goes on anyway? As long as the girls just keep those dollars rolling in (owners perspective).
    Now if I am not mistaken I believe that at least one agency owner does attempt to screen for clients who are proven bad risks (i.e. abusive behaviours), at least that is the impression I am under. Screening may be an imperfect solution at best but might be an idea to start somewhere. I can't, for the life of me, see where anyone could possibly discount the practice as being irrelevant to the success of their business or a that it is a negative in every sense of the word. Nor can I see where any agency owner could not see the merit of using every and all means at their disposal to discourage same. It is pretty clear that posters to this thread consider those who ask for such services as little better than vermin for the potential risk they expose all of us to.

    Now have I missed a salient point here? Look, this activity (hobbying) is at best unregulated and owners and clients can ultimately take any tack they like on this issue. I have a hunch the girls don't care for having pressure put on them to do this and the agency owners can also see the hazards. Only my opinion but if I were an owner and had one of the girls report such a "request" or "demand" I just might be inclined to try my best to refuse future service to this client. How practical would such an initiative be? I don't know. But I feel it is in everyone's best interests that attention should be paid.
    Am I being naive? Well the nice thing about this board is that it is a medium for an exchange of ideas and expressions of sentiment.
    A screening process, by definition, requires a minimum of assiduity and consistency. These are traits rather incompatible with the typical agency mission statement which only values short term returns (pretty much the same can be said about clients and SP's themselves).

    The way I see it, there are enough episodes on a daily basis to fulfil everyone's need for outrage. Sure enough, we go "hiss, hush, boom and pow" but as the dust settles and while the pimps are counting the cash, everything is being forgotten and we're ready for a brand new day.
    Last edited by z/m(Ret); 01-04-2008 at 03:21 AM.

  13. #13
    OUch.... Now, imagine the number of gentleman she is going to meet that will try to do it without necessarily asking... Poor girl.

  14. #14

    The sad part!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Montana
    A screening process, by definition, requires a minimum of assiduity and consistency. These are traits rather incompatible with the typical agency mission statement which only values short term returns (pretty much the same can be said about clients and SP's themselves).

    The way I see it, there are enough episodes on a daily basis to fulfil everyone's need for outrage. Sure enough, we go "hiss, hush, boom and pow" but as the dust settles and while the pimps are counting the cash, everything is being forgotten and we're ready for a brand new day.
    The sad part about it is that you and Doc are right of course.

    Being the optimist I just feel sometimes that we have to try. I guess where I am coming from is that I know some of the agency owners do read the board. And they do try to provide (as far as they are able) a quality product. I just find it hard to believe that John of Eleganza, Martin of Xxxtase, Chris of Devilish, Martin of Asservissante to name a few are not trying to hold to a higher standard due to the workings of this board. For example the B&S bunch know enough by now not to expect the long term patronage of the members here. And how many times have we seen where an agency owner has stepped up to the plate to make good on a shortcoming of one of his girls. Hell I even had a flustered agency owner offer me a free hour and I wasn't even the injured party - just commenting like others on poor practices (Didn't take it BTW). What we are missing on this thread is hearing from the reputable owners who participate here how they feel about the practice and the instructions they are giving to their girls (Yes I realize they may not follow them). If I sounded like I was just venting and not being truly realistic, I guess there was some of that in my previous post. I just take strong exception to someone playing fast and loose with my life.
    Last edited by Regular Guy; 01-04-2008 at 11:41 AM.
    Confucius say: Man who take woman into house on side of hill - not on level.

  15. #15

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Regular Guy
    The sad part about it is that you are right of course.

    Being the optimist I just feel sometimes that we have to try. I guess where I am coming from is that I know some of the agency owners do read the board. And they do try to provide (as far as they are able) a quality product. I just find it hard to believe that John of Eleganza, Martin of Xxxtase, Chris of Devilish, Martin of Asservissante to name a few are not trying to hold to a higher standard due to the workings of this board. For example the B&S bunch know enough by now not to expect the long term patronage of the members here. And how many times have we seen where an agency owner has stepped up to the plate to make good on a shortcoming of one of his girls. Hell I even had a flustered agency owner offer me a free hour and I wasn't even the injured party - just commenting like others on poor practices (Didn't take it BTW). What we are missing on this thread is hearing from the owners how they feel about the practice and the instructions they are giving to their girls (Yes I realize they may not follow them). If I sounded like I was just venting and not being truly realistic, I guess there was some of that in my previous post. I just take strong exception to someone playing fast and loose with my life.
    You have the full responsibility not to let others play fast and loose with your life. The idea of a community of clients, providers, agency owners and misc. participants looking after each others and trying together to improve things is a smoke screen which barely masks the true reasons for which such community was formed to begin with.

    Prostitution, even under it's most palatable form, is pretty much a manifestation of unbridled capitalism: short-term profit over people. Conditional to its mere existence is collective forgetfulness and marginalization of dissent.

    Simply put, agency owners, including those who are looking after their clients, just can't be bothered with issues affecting the public safety. And even if they care, there's only so much they can do: problem clients can easily bypass one's vigilance by booking different providers under different aliases. Seriously doubt agency phones come equipped with voice recognition security systems.

    And finally, as the proverb asks: "Who will guard the guards?"

    In a marketplace where BBFS seekers and providers are not exactly a rarity, I would regard paranoia not as a mental aberration but as a way of staying ahead of the game. With all due respect, the notion that others' attentiveness over issues such as BBFS would be remotely reliable is laughable in its total lack of foresight.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •