Wasn’t it gorgeous today?

Lovely weather here in CC.  My sister (who lives back home) is boycotting my calls.  She says it’s too disgusting to hear me talk about how warm it is and how I need to get a new bathing suit when she’s still scraping ice off her windshield every morning.

Stupid news link of the day:  Epic fail, Dodd

Today’s word count: 0  (Woe!)

Current project: Researching CEO pay in Europe.

Current song on my playlist:  Weezer – Hash Pipe

And now, a word on references.  I imagine this topic will come up a lot on my blog.  It’s a subject very near and dear to my heart (and my intact skin),  and my hobby pet peeve.  Getting guys to name their references.  Ladies who take three weeks to answer a request for a reference.  Ladies who think, “He’s fine.  Wait… no, thinking of someone else.  Yeah, I think he’s fine” counts as an adequate reference.  Guys who use a reference older than Methuselah.  Newbies who call at 3:14 AM and ask if being willing to drop trousers on webcam counts as a reference.  When the definition of “he’s fine” is “he tried to sneak the cover off but apologised for it real nicely later, and didn’t short the envelope by more than fifty bucks.”

Lately, and I’ve no idea why, there’s been a rash of gents thanking me for giving them references.  Only, I didn’t.  I would have; I’d seen each of them, and they’re great guys and hobbyists, but the gal in question hadn’t actually asked me for a reference. 

It’s a bit baffling.  Do y’all think maybe the gals are reckoning that if I’m off the open market, then I must not be giving references?

Advertisements
Published in: on March 11, 2010 at 6:35 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: ,

Brandy’s Bedroom, and references

I’d like it if you guys could read this link and tell me what you think of it.  To put it really quickly, Brandy is proposing hobby references be done in writing, and the ladies go online to check your reference rather than call around or send emails/PMs.  No waiting for replies.

There’s an awful lot of other ideas too.  She’s been a busy gal!

Published in: on March 10, 2010 at 7:03 pm  Comments (5)  
Tags: ,

The provider hierarchy

There was an interesting post by ThatHarleyGuy in the Austin forums.  In it, he discusses a hierarchy among providers, of the “If you see HER, then I won’t see you” variety.

Well, now.  I’ve some commentary. 

There are some gals whose references I can’t accept, and I’m pretty sure it’s not from some petty jealousy of the Hive Vagina Hierarchy.  There are the odd providers whose reference aren’t worth a piss-hole in the snow. 

I’m thinking of one gal in particular.  (And I’m not going to name her.  Not even her city.)  She’s fairly popular, but her references are crap.  Every single instance in which a hobbyist had only two references, and she was one of them, the session was a disaster even though she claimed the guys were fine.  Rude.  Time-wasters.  Complainers.  Rough.  Shorting the envelope.  Outrageous demands. 

I’d already started being very wary of her references when it all culminated in an alert she posted on ASPD.  I read the alert in one of the handful of times I logged onto the site.  In it, she reported a guy she’d seen who had choked, roughed up and robbed her.  What really got me is that she said she’d seen him five times before and he’d always been like that, albeit to a lesser degree.  Yet she kept seeing him. 

And, I can only assume, referencing him.

I can see how confusion could arise.  A fellow might think she does B&Gs, fifteen- and thirty-minute sessions, and since I have an hour minimum then I simply consider myself a cut above her business methods.  Well, in truth, I do.  Because I’ve got better screening standards than she does, though, not because of any time minimums. 

She’ll see anyone at all, no matter how much of an asshat or potentially dangerous hobbyist he is, and then pass him on to other ladies.  When a hobbyist sends her along as one of two references I try to plumb for a better one.  If he can’t find a better one, then I have to wonder why.

Published in: on March 10, 2010 at 1:19 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: