-
You asked and we delivered! AMPReviews now provides the option to upgrade to VIP access via paid subscription as an alternative to writing your own reviews. VIP Access allows you to read all the hidden content within member-submitted reviews AND gives access to private VIP-only forums in each city. You can upgrade your account INSTANTLY by visiting the Account Upgrades page in your own user profile and using a valid credit card to purchase a subscription. You can get to this page by clicking the link in any review, by clicking the red "See the Details Now" banner on the home page, and by clicking the Purchase Private Details link in the navbar at the top of every page
Rapey or Not Rapey: Christmas Edition
- Thread starter BrettKavanaugh
- Start date
Welcome to NY.
Let me take this from the other direction. Why do you agree about "served her purpose"? I mean, they implicitly entered into an agreement, and she fulfilled that agreement. Many of us seek purpose in our life. Purpose is something to admire. A soldier serves his country, what could be nobler? Everyone of us who has a job is essentially serving a purpose. He is enthusiastic that he was able to achieve his goals because of Sara. Sounds like a strong endoresement. So why do you agree "served her purpose" is problematic?
Let me take this from the other direction. Why do you agree about "served her purpose"? I mean, they implicitly entered into an agreement, and she fulfilled that agreement. Many of us seek purpose in our life. Purpose is something to admire. A soldier serves his country, what could be nobler? Everyone of us who has a job is essentially serving a purpose. He is enthusiastic that he was able to achieve his goals because of Sara. Sounds like a strong endoresement. So why do you agree "served her purpose" is problematic?
Thanks for the welcome, but I've been to New York many times. If I hadn't though, I might have thought everyone there answers questions with a question.
I prefer synchronous dialogue, and would like you to answer my questions first; then I'd be delighted to answer yours. I promise. And I don't break my balls or my word for anyone.
Thanks in advance.
R
I prefer synchronous dialogue, and would like you to answer my questions first; then I'd be delighted to answer yours. I promise. And I don't break my balls or my word for anyone.
Thanks in advance.
R
Fine. And you don't need to answer my question. Because I can tell from your tagline and your logic where things are going to go. I'm tapping out after this.
Anybody here remember the ESPNZone in Times Square, like 15-20 years ago? They had this huge framed collection of Yankee baseball cards on the wall. Look closely, all you see is baseball cards. But if you backed away, it was also a single large portrait of Babe Ruth.
Every single thing in that review in isolation is defensible. Put them all together, with nothing to counteract them, a completely different picture emerges. They're all part of the package. Which again is why so many guys here instinctively knew something was terribly terribly wrong.
Can you criticize looks? Of course. And I explicitly said so, so I'm not sure how you misssed that. And further elaborated on that in an extended comment later on, which you understandably probably missed, because who the heck wants to plow through an argument on the history of NY gang wars or whatever to get through all the comments? Here
That said, find me a review with a critique on the girl's looks worded as strongly as that in the very title of the thread, and the very first sentence. It sets a tone.
Not once have I ever suggested that a negative review makes you a misogynist. A rapey review makes you a misogynist. This wasn't even a negative review. That's what makes it even creepier. I am trying to lay out the distinction between pretty hard core reviews that are not rapey and reviews that are. And I'm also trying to talk about how we talk about these things.
The bathroom thing is also something that in isolation could be totally innocuous. Yes, of course you can go to the bathroom and not be a sociopath. I have used the bathroom on the way out on many occasions. Did you really think that's what I was saying? Really? And yeah, it didn't explicitly hit my consciousness the first time that this is part of the whole package (though I think it added to that immediate impression intuitively). I don't think it was a conscious attempt on his part either to link her to a toilet, but it sure reveals a lot. Come on, find me a review where it gets casually mentioned that he took a piss on the way out, unless there was something funny to see in the bathroom, or he met another girl on the way in or out. It's completely gratuitous. At a minimum, it's just plain weird. Even more so because he uses "urinated" in a strange clinical way. But because it's a non-sequitur the way it immediately follows "she served her purpose", not to mention all that followed before, it's totally creepy. Chilling even. Sure gives off vibes of: I used her like a rag doll and left her there, and then I took a piss. It's completely demeaning. It's like one step away from: I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti. I was not the first one to say this gives off borderline serial killer vibes.
The imagined violation of consent in isolation might even be acceptable in a different context - something like "I thought she was resisting me, but in the end it was really more of a playful tease, because as I pushed the envelope she took me in...."
Heck, I can even defend "she served her purpose" by itself. You could write "she served her purpose, I served mine, we both left happy". Wouldn't raise too many eyebrows.
Put all the things together, with zero mitigating words to show the slightest flicker of respect or affection or concern, any acknowledgement of her humanity, and it starts to paint a picture.
In Japanese there's a useful idiom. KY. Not the jelly. Kuki yomenai. Literally can't read the air. We would say: can't read between the lines. This is appears to be one of those cases where many of you yomenai.
Everything in this review screams "she's just a whore"
Most of us can see Babe Ruth. Plain as day. Please take a step back and try to see the whole picture.
Ooh. flicker/flickr totally unintentional there.
One final thing. I haven't hit hard how wrong you guys are when you try to justify anything in this review. A bit unfair, I suppose because of this backstory that most of you don't know. So you'll have to take it on faith, sorry to say, for reasons that should be obvious if you think about it for a minute. But you are wrong. Everything about this review is foul. This is a rapey review, full stop. You all are really wrong. Dead wrong. Unbelievably wrong. Catastrophically wrong. Airplanes crashing wrong.
Frankly, guys, this whole thing is depressing me and worse - it's suppressing my libido. I'd like to go back to thinking about large tits and waist/ass ratios and buttery pussies and the girls who do excellent jobs of painting the fantasy that they enjoy kissing me with their soft lips and agile tongues, and girls who laugh with me, because the best sex is funny.
The toilet thing probably merited some elaboration, so I jumped back in. But now this will be my last comment on this thread. I think I'm going to "unwatch" it. You all can have the "last word" if you like. Some of you are being willfully obtuse and much of what gets said to counter what I've laid out here will probably unintentionally prove my point.
(I do however reserve the right to start a sequel thread, because there's a line of thought I may want to explore some more down the line. With more than 10 sets of eyeballs.)
Peace out.
Anybody here remember the ESPNZone in Times Square, like 15-20 years ago? They had this huge framed collection of Yankee baseball cards on the wall. Look closely, all you see is baseball cards. But if you backed away, it was also a single large portrait of Babe Ruth.
Every single thing in that review in isolation is defensible. Put them all together, with nothing to counteract them, a completely different picture emerges. They're all part of the package. Which again is why so many guys here instinctively knew something was terribly terribly wrong.
Can you criticize looks? Of course. And I explicitly said so, so I'm not sure how you misssed that. And further elaborated on that in an extended comment later on, which you understandably probably missed, because who the heck wants to plow through an argument on the history of NY gang wars or whatever to get through all the comments? Here
That said, find me a review with a critique on the girl's looks worded as strongly as that in the very title of the thread, and the very first sentence. It sets a tone.
Not once have I ever suggested that a negative review makes you a misogynist. A rapey review makes you a misogynist. This wasn't even a negative review. That's what makes it even creepier. I am trying to lay out the distinction between pretty hard core reviews that are not rapey and reviews that are. And I'm also trying to talk about how we talk about these things.
The bathroom thing is also something that in isolation could be totally innocuous. Yes, of course you can go to the bathroom and not be a sociopath. I have used the bathroom on the way out on many occasions. Did you really think that's what I was saying? Really? And yeah, it didn't explicitly hit my consciousness the first time that this is part of the whole package (though I think it added to that immediate impression intuitively). I don't think it was a conscious attempt on his part either to link her to a toilet, but it sure reveals a lot. Come on, find me a review where it gets casually mentioned that he took a piss on the way out, unless there was something funny to see in the bathroom, or he met another girl on the way in or out. It's completely gratuitous. At a minimum, it's just plain weird. Even more so because he uses "urinated" in a strange clinical way. But because it's a non-sequitur the way it immediately follows "she served her purpose", not to mention all that followed before, it's totally creepy. Chilling even. Sure gives off vibes of: I used her like a rag doll and left her there, and then I took a piss. It's completely demeaning. It's like one step away from: I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti. I was not the first one to say this gives off borderline serial killer vibes.
The imagined violation of consent in isolation might even be acceptable in a different context - something like "I thought she was resisting me, but in the end it was really more of a playful tease, because as I pushed the envelope she took me in...."
Heck, I can even defend "she served her purpose" by itself. You could write "she served her purpose, I served mine, we both left happy". Wouldn't raise too many eyebrows.
Put all the things together, with zero mitigating words to show the slightest flicker of respect or affection or concern, any acknowledgement of her humanity, and it starts to paint a picture.
In Japanese there's a useful idiom. KY. Not the jelly. Kuki yomenai. Literally can't read the air. We would say: can't read between the lines. This is appears to be one of those cases where many of you yomenai.
Everything in this review screams "she's just a whore"
Most of us can see Babe Ruth. Plain as day. Please take a step back and try to see the whole picture.
Ooh. flicker/flickr totally unintentional there.
One final thing. I haven't hit hard how wrong you guys are when you try to justify anything in this review. A bit unfair, I suppose because of this backstory that most of you don't know. So you'll have to take it on faith, sorry to say, for reasons that should be obvious if you think about it for a minute. But you are wrong. Everything about this review is foul. This is a rapey review, full stop. You all are really wrong. Dead wrong. Unbelievably wrong. Catastrophically wrong. Airplanes crashing wrong.
Frankly, guys, this whole thing is depressing me and worse - it's suppressing my libido. I'd like to go back to thinking about large tits and waist/ass ratios and buttery pussies and the girls who do excellent jobs of painting the fantasy that they enjoy kissing me with their soft lips and agile tongues, and girls who laugh with me, because the best sex is funny.
The toilet thing probably merited some elaboration, so I jumped back in. But now this will be my last comment on this thread. I think I'm going to "unwatch" it. You all can have the "last word" if you like. Some of you are being willfully obtuse and much of what gets said to counter what I've laid out here will probably unintentionally prove my point.
(I do however reserve the right to start a sequel thread, because there's a line of thought I may want to explore some more down the line. With more than 10 sets of eyeballs.)
Peace out.
I write for a living now, and the only substance I’ve ever really enjoyed is THC, although I’ve experimented with just about everything that doesn’t involve needles. I can’t really absorb info high, but if I don’t need to, and/or I’ve already absorbed whatever info I need, it definitely puts me into a writing mood and the words flow more easily than without it.
True and I'd like to get back to thinking about petite blonde Florida teens up here for two week tours.
But the fact remains.
What you brought up here judge, is real.
There are some sick fucks in this thing of ours, and I commend you for calling them out.
I have seen these disgusting threats that girls get with my own eyes...and ears.
Thank you for bringing this vile behavior to a head, and here's to hoping that in 2024 we can all do our part, however small it may be, to reduce it.
Happy new year to you, good sir!
Well it sounds like it's you who wants to have the last word.
What you didn't seem to get is that I generally agreed with you, just nitpicked a few places and you got all offended. Pretty ironic about the big picture. Word to Big L. Nowhere did I defend the review, I only questioned some of your points which make no sense. Just because Hitler was an objectively terrible person, doesn't mean you can say he ate babies. Or that anyone who goes to art school is a vile dictator.
But there's a lot to unpack here.
Let's start.
First of all, my first original question was this statement of yours.
"Really nobody normal would put any very in the title."
This isn't pertaining to the review at hand. You're making a generalization to support your point that the review was rapey.
It literally says nobody normal. It doesn't say the reviewer or whatever. It's a sweeping generalization implying that ANYONE - including me and you - who puts very overrated in title is not normal. Tell me where my logic is wrong here. This is pretty simple logic. It has nothing to do with the review and everything with your generalization.
If this isn't the case, why use this generalization? It makes your point look worse, not better.
Look for "very overrated" phrase in reviews on yelp. Tons of results. Various services, meaning restaurants, spas, massage places, etc. Many reviews start with that. They're *normal* reviews.
I know user reviews well. I cherish user reviews. User reviews are for consumers by consumers. They're not advertising nor a way to make the sellers feel better. Saying very overrated is normal. Please don't make it sound like it's somehow abnormal.
I took offense to this generalization. Instead of hiding behind the whole "you don't see the big picture", I wanted clarification on this particular generalization.
About the toilet -
"Come on, find me a review where it gets casually mentioned that he took a piss on the way out, unless there was something funny to see in the bathroom, or he met another girl on the way in or out. "
Sure thing. You do know there is a search function?
https://ampreviews.net/index.php?threads/review-taylor-kashi-at-nyaf.170096/
There are many more too.
Once again, just because a review you found demeaning and disgusting (and I agree with you mostly about it!) you make weird generalizations that don't sit well with me.
You don't like the choice of "urinated" because it's too clinical? Many reviews describe girls urinating on them. Is that also too clinical or that is fine ?
If you go in raw, many people think urinating after helps. I often urinate after, never was the girl offended about me urinating after a session.
Once again, do you realize that by making these generalizations you offend other people, people who treat the girls very well? Nowhere am I defending his review. I am critizing two of your generalizations about the hobby that are, frankly, absurd.
What you didn't seem to get is that I generally agreed with you, just nitpicked a few places and you got all offended. Pretty ironic about the big picture. Word to Big L. Nowhere did I defend the review, I only questioned some of your points which make no sense. Just because Hitler was an objectively terrible person, doesn't mean you can say he ate babies. Or that anyone who goes to art school is a vile dictator.
But there's a lot to unpack here.
Let's start.
First of all, my first original question was this statement of yours.
"Really nobody normal would put any very in the title."
This isn't pertaining to the review at hand. You're making a generalization to support your point that the review was rapey.
It literally says nobody normal. It doesn't say the reviewer or whatever. It's a sweeping generalization implying that ANYONE - including me and you - who puts very overrated in title is not normal. Tell me where my logic is wrong here. This is pretty simple logic. It has nothing to do with the review and everything with your generalization.
If this isn't the case, why use this generalization? It makes your point look worse, not better.
Look for "very overrated" phrase in reviews on yelp. Tons of results. Various services, meaning restaurants, spas, massage places, etc. Many reviews start with that. They're *normal* reviews.
I know user reviews well. I cherish user reviews. User reviews are for consumers by consumers. They're not advertising nor a way to make the sellers feel better. Saying very overrated is normal. Please don't make it sound like it's somehow abnormal.
I took offense to this generalization. Instead of hiding behind the whole "you don't see the big picture", I wanted clarification on this particular generalization.
About the toilet -
"Come on, find me a review where it gets casually mentioned that he took a piss on the way out, unless there was something funny to see in the bathroom, or he met another girl on the way in or out. "
Sure thing. You do know there is a search function?
https://ampreviews.net/index.php?threads/review-taylor-kashi-at-nyaf.170096/
There are many more too.
Once again, just because a review you found demeaning and disgusting (and I agree with you mostly about it!) you make weird generalizations that don't sit well with me.
You don't like the choice of "urinated" because it's too clinical? Many reviews describe girls urinating on them. Is that also too clinical or that is fine ?
If you go in raw, many people think urinating after helps. I often urinate after, never was the girl offended about me urinating after a session.
Once again, do you realize that by making these generalizations you offend other people, people who treat the girls very well? Nowhere am I defending his review. I am critizing two of your generalizations about the hobby that are, frankly, absurd.
Now to answer this question since I promised to.
Sexual services are like any other services.So once again I will defer to yelp and other service reviews to see how it sounds.
I don't see many - if any! - user reviews saying about a doctor (health service) a fitness instructor (physical exercise service) a massage therapist (physical therapy service) that they "served their purpose". It sounds bad, it sounds like an object being used up, and hence why I completely agreed with your assessment.
"Very overrated", OTOH, sounds completely fine and is utilized ubiquitously when people rate all of the above services. It means that the service is rated highly, but they felt it wasn't high quality, hence overrated.
I am a simple man. I like user reviews/user discussion and I don't see a reason to treat sexual service reviews any different from non-sexual service reviews. There's no extra cookie points, brownie points, exclusion clauses or anything of the sort. Sexual services are great and I commend people who sell them. But I'm not gonna act like we owe them something special or that we have some privilege. Yet, this of course doesn't mean that we should treat working girls like objects. We should treat them just like people who sell other services, like doctors, fitness instructors, massage therapists and so on.
I hope you do read this. I hate to type shit up on my phone and spend time writing in vain. Lol.
Sexual services are like any other services.So once again I will defer to yelp and other service reviews to see how it sounds.
I don't see many - if any! - user reviews saying about a doctor (health service) a fitness instructor (physical exercise service) a massage therapist (physical therapy service) that they "served their purpose". It sounds bad, it sounds like an object being used up, and hence why I completely agreed with your assessment.
"Very overrated", OTOH, sounds completely fine and is utilized ubiquitously when people rate all of the above services. It means that the service is rated highly, but they felt it wasn't high quality, hence overrated.
I am a simple man. I like user reviews/user discussion and I don't see a reason to treat sexual service reviews any different from non-sexual service reviews. There's no extra cookie points, brownie points, exclusion clauses or anything of the sort. Sexual services are great and I commend people who sell them. But I'm not gonna act like we owe them something special or that we have some privilege. Yet, this of course doesn't mean that we should treat working girls like objects. We should treat them just like people who sell other services, like doctors, fitness instructors, massage therapists and so on.
I hope you do read this. I hate to type shit up on my phone and spend time writing in vain. Lol.
Sorry, thought you were the ghost writer.
And sorry again that you got butthurt because you thought my short reply was flippant. It wasn't. I do think stupidity is ruining the country.
Anyway, glad all the rapey reviews are going to be put on blast. Just like the guy who used to write about hurting girls and making them bleed and putting them out of work. He doesn't write that garbage anymore. And I hope to the hooker gods he doesn't do it IRL.
Happy New Year, Blixen! All the best.
And sorry again that you got butthurt because you thought my short reply was flippant. It wasn't. I do think stupidity is ruining the country.
Anyway, glad all the rapey reviews are going to be put on blast. Just like the guy who used to write about hurting girls and making them bleed and putting them out of work. He doesn't write that garbage anymore. And I hope to the hooker gods he doesn't do it IRL.
Happy New Year, Blixen! All the best.
That’s me, but I don’t have a dog in this fight. I appreciate the thread, because the way some guys write about these girls and the way they treat them turns my fucking stomach. As far as using very in the title goes, it might be susceptible to arguably valid criticism in terms of good writing, and I once had a supervisor who all but prohibited it, but I don’t think it’s fair to characterize someone as “abnormal” for it. On the subject of normalcy as it relates to any of this goes, I think it’s abnormal and sociopathic to treat these girls badly and/or to demean them in any way, whether in actions or “just” in the way you talk about them. A normal human being has nothing but appreciation for what they do for us and some understanding and compassion about what they have to deal with on a daily basis when they have the misfortune of dealing with the abuse inspired by misogyny, self-loathing projected onto them, and apparent thinly veiled (and sometimes admitted) sadism.
https://nypost.com/2023/12/28/metro...n=nypost&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
There's a discussion in the Brooklyn forum regarding a violent invasion/rape of a fast house spot in Sunset park
There's a discussion in the Brooklyn forum regarding a violent invasion/rape of a fast house spot in Sunset park
Gonna do a Tom Brady and pop back in for a minute, then re-retire. Cause a new sports analogy hit me. Can't just keep that to myself, can I?
And yeah, you did fulfill your promise. I was feeling extra cranky yesterday, because of this damn thread. But then I remembered I was failing to follow the teachings of our beloved Saint Victoria H and her infinite grace. (Speaking of which, recently met DDY Grace - might be worth it in a pinch, but doesn't strike me as a must see). Infinite grace isn't easy. But last night Saint Victoria H sent a spectre to me in my dreams, a vision of Christmas Whores Past. A ghost with DDs (at least) and a teeny tiny waist, and in this vision I was doing all sorts of unspeakable mutually consenting and mutually gratifying things. When I awoke my Tiny Tim had transformed into a rock hard Christmas Goose. (OK, Christmas Goose is a little weird here, true, but let's go with it anyway). Better yet, I was able to book that past fav for today and make her my Whore of Christmas (season) present. So my mojo is back and I'm in a much better mood today. Not a bad way to start the year.
I do appreciate that, big picture, you're on the right side of history here. Yay! I ask you in return show some grace to me, because your nitpicks had some modifiers that could come over as unduly confrontational. But let's just call that some combination of sloppy writing and simple misreading - because who has the time to read the whole thing through? - and assert your heart is in the right place. Lesson: modifiers are important! Use them with care.
So to everyone who has ever used "very very" and to everyone who has ever urinated, my sincerest apologies.
Glad we all agree this review was problematic to say the least. But let's address these minor nits.
Let's start, AGAIN, with how we talk about looks.
No, this was not a critique from an English Composition 101 perspective.
I thought I was clear the first three times that I believe it's more than OK, that it's important to speak honestly about your impressions on a girl's appearance. I have used "overrated" myself from time to time. I even said leading with the title "very very overrated in looks" is not inherently sociopathic. I'm saying that is unnecessarily rude. But I'll stand by "abnormal". Not abnormal in the sense that the writer of such a phrase automatically suffers from some abnormal personality disorder, but it's abnormally and unnecessarily rude.
When you're talking about a girl's looks, sorry, it's NOT exactly the same as a Yelp review. There's a big difference between "the steak at Peter Lugar is very very overrated but the burger is good" vs "she is very very overrated in looks, but her service is good". These are human beings and that is simply hurtful to any woman in a way that the steak critique is not hurtful to the owners or chefs at Peter Luger. And in a way that is unnecessary - the extra verys don't add any information, just cause extra hurt. I do think it's incumbent on all of us as decent human being to try to balance the needs of informing our fellow potential customers, while doing so in a way that respects her humanity. It's not easy to do, sure. But we should try. For example, read some reviews of NYAF Taylor, for better examples of how that balance can be achieved. (Well, some seem to say she's cute, but some seem to convey the truth tactfully).
Look I've crossed that line. I've been rude. 2 years ago I wrote a mostly positive review of a girl, but included some things that in retrospect were gratuitously mean about the work she had done on her face, even as I said in the mirror her face suddenly became beautiful. I heard that this girl read my review and was really upset, and that was one (not the only) reason she left NY. How could you not feel bad knowing that? Even if I had no intention of ever repeating with that girl?
Few months later I wrote an absolute rave for a girl, but called her face something of a "peasant face". Now, I had clarified in an earlier review that when I say peasant face, it's effectively neutral - not much different from saying "a round face", and that there are some very (VERY) pretty peasant faces, and unattractive non-peasant faces. But I didn't clarify that in this review, so how would she know what I meant? So again, I heard the girl flew into a rage when she read that. Luckily she never realized it was me! What's wrong with trying to minimize that? It so happens that I've heard 2nd hand some things about both of those girls indicating that they might be problematic human beings outside of the room. But that doesn't matter. They are still human beings, human beings who were generous with me and gave themselves to me completely and enthusiastically. So yes, I do kinda owe it to them to try to be as nice as possible while still being honest.
So here's my take
"Overrated in looks". OK, and even necessary (if that's your true feeling) if it's in the body of the review.
"Overrated in looks" as the 1st thing in the title. Pushing it, on the edge of rude. Is that really the first and foremost most important thing to highlight?
"Very overrated in looks" in the title. Straight up rude
"Very very overrated in looks". Abnormally rude, and frankly, if I read that I'm on DefCon 3 for someone who enjoys demeaning girls for the sake of it. And in this case, based on what happens after, it was clearly the opening salvo in an assault on her humanity, her dehumanization reducing her into simply a hole. It's clear he takes great pleasure in putting her down. By itself it's abnormally rude. Together with everything else it's vile and disgusting. This is like 7 baseball cards forming one of the eyes and part of the nose.
You can quibble on the examples I laid out above, but what's wrong with trying to have some basic human decency here and trying to seek that balance?
Oh, and you don't think his putting down her looks is part of the dehumanization? He revels in proclaiming he has no interest even in fucking her and thus rejects her. It's not because her BJ is so sublime, it's because she's not even worth fucking. And that's because in his view she's an unattractive run down whore. Just a hole he can use and throw away like a rag doll.
BTW, as another example, this discussion prompted me to search "overrated" in title reviews, and was reminded of this Arie review from a few weeks ago.
https://ampreviews.net/index.php?th...ed-overrated-and-utterly-unremarkable.169215/
I was going to say, this is on the edge, it's tough, and the use of "utterly" might be too much, but "utterly unremarkable" doesn't seem as bad. It's pretty rude, but it's not QUITE "abnormal" per se, and certainly not rapey. After all, it's a legitimate summary of his perspective (I mean Arie is polarizing around here), but not rapey.
Then I reread it. Turns out there's one line in there that's actually pretty damn rapey. In the current court, sometimes I'm the swing vote, but I think this one is 5-4 rapey review. So more evidence that there IS a correlation, albeit an imperfect correlation, between that kind of language and the rapiness.
Now about urination. Wow, this is a fun way to start 2024, huh?
Once again, I never ever remotely implied there's anything wrong with literally taking a whiz on your way out of a bordello. I probably take a whiz on my way out of a bordello 30-50% of the time, depending partly on whether Mrs K is texting "where the fuck are you?"
Let me repeat that. It's OK to take a whiz on your way out of a bordello
One more time for the folks in the back.
IT'S OK TO TAKE A WHIZ ON YOUR WAY OUT OF A BORDELLO!!!!
Now reporting on it is by itself innocuous. I do think it's a little weird, as it imparts no useful information unless you're telling us about the bathroom itself - a description of the facilities is minor but useful. But in the example you provided, the weirdness is completely benign, because it's not attached to anything vile, and so it evaporates harmlessly into the air.
Actually, you know what? I just reread the review. In your example it IS somewhat pertinent, as the reviewer mentions he had to go and and thus had to cut his session short by 5 minutes. So in this case, it's not weird at all. Some readers might have been concerned if he was able to find relief in time. Part of the story. The resolution of a suspense thriller of sorts. So here, it's totally fine.
You'll laugh at this, but I think in retrospect there's also some sub-conscious significance that he used a paragraph break.
BTW, this review you found is a great counterexample - it's of the same Taylor who apparently is not the most beautiful woman in the world, and he notes her pudge without being nasty about it. In the session he does many of the same physical things our original furious reviewer did - in fact starts doing things that make it difficult for her to breathe. But notice that he says "she loves it". It's not really relevant for our question here if that's true or not....he believes she does (or wants us to believe she does), and it seems important to him that she does. Her mindset matters. She is a human. So this is an 8-1 not rapey situation here.
So what's wrong with the urination in Sara's review? By itself, the urination is maybe a little weird, but harmless. But when it gets attached to everything that happened before, it takes on new meaning. Baseball cards. I'm going back to Hannibal Lecter. Nothing wrong with a nice chianti. (Or...is there?) But when you attach it to eating a liver, it becomes waaaay more sinister. "I ate his liver" could be a crazed maniac who's in some drug-induced or brain-damaged state and isn't fully aware of what he's doing. "I ate his liver with fava beans and a nice chianti" is now an outwardly civilized man in total control, shows he knows exactly what he's doing and has even planned it out in advance in a cold calculating way. Gives the sociopathy that extra umph. In this case, "She served her purpose" is DefCon 10 rapey sociopath. "She served her purpose. I urinated and left" (no paragraph break!) takes it to 11, Spinal Tap style. These are adjacent thoughts, so it's evocative of pissing on this object he just used, demeaned and disposed of. But it's also like a nice chianti in the way he uses the cold clinical term "urinated" instead of "took a piss" or "went to the bathroom". It's precisely because it's clinical that makes it extra extra creepy. Takes things from: this guy is a savage, to: this guy is a sociopath. Chilling. Most of us reacted to that at some level, even sub-consciously. That was 23 baseball cards right there: the Mantle, the DiMaggio, the Yogi, the Whitey Ford and a bunch of others, forming 1/3 of the face. It's all subconscious on his part as well I'm sure, but there's something there, I'm telling you.
Hey, I'm sure some of you will say I'm overthinking it. Well of course I am! Apparently I had to overthink it in order to articulate the intuition most of us had that this thing was so fucking creepy and so very very wrong. Even without knowing anything behind the scenes. So I had to try to figure out what precisely it is we sensed that others did not and why. I'll compare it to a major league outfielder who knows where the ball is going immediately - he doesn't stop to think: the exit velocity is about 95 mph at a 45 degree angle, and the wind is blowing at 15 mph from left to right, and it's a left-handed batter so the spin is going to make it hook right, and this is my best path to maximize my forward momentum on the catch for me to hit the cut-off man. He just knows. From the crack of the bat. From a lifetime of shagging flies. With this review, most of us just knew, from a lifetime of human experience...we knew even before we got to "She served her purpose". Some of the guys here have hope: they're decent infielders, but in the outfield might not get the best jump on the ball or slightly misjudge the angle and let a few drop in. Then some of them are DH's and while they might be able to handle their own bat pretty well, frankly seem totally lost in the outfield.
Make sense? Good. Glad we're all friends again. So if you'll excuse me, I must now take my leave and go explore the question of the day: should auld acquaintance be well fucked? Spoiler alert: there will be much shagging.
PS - No, going to art school doesn't mean you're a genocidal totalitarian war-mongering dictator. But it might show something's a little bit off. (I kid. I kid).
And yeah, you did fulfill your promise. I was feeling extra cranky yesterday, because of this damn thread. But then I remembered I was failing to follow the teachings of our beloved Saint Victoria H and her infinite grace. (Speaking of which, recently met DDY Grace - might be worth it in a pinch, but doesn't strike me as a must see). Infinite grace isn't easy. But last night Saint Victoria H sent a spectre to me in my dreams, a vision of Christmas Whores Past. A ghost with DDs (at least) and a teeny tiny waist, and in this vision I was doing all sorts of unspeakable mutually consenting and mutually gratifying things. When I awoke my Tiny Tim had transformed into a rock hard Christmas Goose. (OK, Christmas Goose is a little weird here, true, but let's go with it anyway). Better yet, I was able to book that past fav for today and make her my Whore of Christmas (season) present. So my mojo is back and I'm in a much better mood today. Not a bad way to start the year.
I do appreciate that, big picture, you're on the right side of history here. Yay! I ask you in return show some grace to me, because your nitpicks had some modifiers that could come over as unduly confrontational. But let's just call that some combination of sloppy writing and simple misreading - because who has the time to read the whole thing through? - and assert your heart is in the right place. Lesson: modifiers are important! Use them with care.
So to everyone who has ever used "very very" and to everyone who has ever urinated, my sincerest apologies.
Glad we all agree this review was problematic to say the least. But let's address these minor nits.
Let's start, AGAIN, with how we talk about looks.
No, this was not a critique from an English Composition 101 perspective.
I thought I was clear the first three times that I believe it's more than OK, that it's important to speak honestly about your impressions on a girl's appearance. I have used "overrated" myself from time to time. I even said leading with the title "very very overrated in looks" is not inherently sociopathic. I'm saying that is unnecessarily rude. But I'll stand by "abnormal". Not abnormal in the sense that the writer of such a phrase automatically suffers from some abnormal personality disorder, but it's abnormally and unnecessarily rude.
When you're talking about a girl's looks, sorry, it's NOT exactly the same as a Yelp review. There's a big difference between "the steak at Peter Lugar is very very overrated but the burger is good" vs "she is very very overrated in looks, but her service is good". These are human beings and that is simply hurtful to any woman in a way that the steak critique is not hurtful to the owners or chefs at Peter Luger. And in a way that is unnecessary - the extra verys don't add any information, just cause extra hurt. I do think it's incumbent on all of us as decent human being to try to balance the needs of informing our fellow potential customers, while doing so in a way that respects her humanity. It's not easy to do, sure. But we should try. For example, read some reviews of NYAF Taylor, for better examples of how that balance can be achieved. (Well, some seem to say she's cute, but some seem to convey the truth tactfully).
Look I've crossed that line. I've been rude. 2 years ago I wrote a mostly positive review of a girl, but included some things that in retrospect were gratuitously mean about the work she had done on her face, even as I said in the mirror her face suddenly became beautiful. I heard that this girl read my review and was really upset, and that was one (not the only) reason she left NY. How could you not feel bad knowing that? Even if I had no intention of ever repeating with that girl?
Few months later I wrote an absolute rave for a girl, but called her face something of a "peasant face". Now, I had clarified in an earlier review that when I say peasant face, it's effectively neutral - not much different from saying "a round face", and that there are some very (VERY) pretty peasant faces, and unattractive non-peasant faces. But I didn't clarify that in this review, so how would she know what I meant? So again, I heard the girl flew into a rage when she read that. Luckily she never realized it was me! What's wrong with trying to minimize that? It so happens that I've heard 2nd hand some things about both of those girls indicating that they might be problematic human beings outside of the room. But that doesn't matter. They are still human beings, human beings who were generous with me and gave themselves to me completely and enthusiastically. So yes, I do kinda owe it to them to try to be as nice as possible while still being honest.
So here's my take
"Overrated in looks". OK, and even necessary (if that's your true feeling) if it's in the body of the review.
"Overrated in looks" as the 1st thing in the title. Pushing it, on the edge of rude. Is that really the first and foremost most important thing to highlight?
"Very overrated in looks" in the title. Straight up rude
"Very very overrated in looks". Abnormally rude, and frankly, if I read that I'm on DefCon 3 for someone who enjoys demeaning girls for the sake of it. And in this case, based on what happens after, it was clearly the opening salvo in an assault on her humanity, her dehumanization reducing her into simply a hole. It's clear he takes great pleasure in putting her down. By itself it's abnormally rude. Together with everything else it's vile and disgusting. This is like 7 baseball cards forming one of the eyes and part of the nose.
You can quibble on the examples I laid out above, but what's wrong with trying to have some basic human decency here and trying to seek that balance?
Oh, and you don't think his putting down her looks is part of the dehumanization? He revels in proclaiming he has no interest even in fucking her and thus rejects her. It's not because her BJ is so sublime, it's because she's not even worth fucking. And that's because in his view she's an unattractive run down whore. Just a hole he can use and throw away like a rag doll.
BTW, as another example, this discussion prompted me to search "overrated" in title reviews, and was reminded of this Arie review from a few weeks ago.
https://ampreviews.net/index.php?th...ed-overrated-and-utterly-unremarkable.169215/
I was going to say, this is on the edge, it's tough, and the use of "utterly" might be too much, but "utterly unremarkable" doesn't seem as bad. It's pretty rude, but it's not QUITE "abnormal" per se, and certainly not rapey. After all, it's a legitimate summary of his perspective (I mean Arie is polarizing around here), but not rapey.
Then I reread it. Turns out there's one line in there that's actually pretty damn rapey. In the current court, sometimes I'm the swing vote, but I think this one is 5-4 rapey review. So more evidence that there IS a correlation, albeit an imperfect correlation, between that kind of language and the rapiness.
Now about urination. Wow, this is a fun way to start 2024, huh?
Once again, I never ever remotely implied there's anything wrong with literally taking a whiz on your way out of a bordello. I probably take a whiz on my way out of a bordello 30-50% of the time, depending partly on whether Mrs K is texting "where the fuck are you?"
Let me repeat that. It's OK to take a whiz on your way out of a bordello
One more time for the folks in the back.
IT'S OK TO TAKE A WHIZ ON YOUR WAY OUT OF A BORDELLO!!!!
Now reporting on it is by itself innocuous. I do think it's a little weird, as it imparts no useful information unless you're telling us about the bathroom itself - a description of the facilities is minor but useful. But in the example you provided, the weirdness is completely benign, because it's not attached to anything vile, and so it evaporates harmlessly into the air.
Actually, you know what? I just reread the review. In your example it IS somewhat pertinent, as the reviewer mentions he had to go and and thus had to cut his session short by 5 minutes. So in this case, it's not weird at all. Some readers might have been concerned if he was able to find relief in time. Part of the story. The resolution of a suspense thriller of sorts. So here, it's totally fine.
You'll laugh at this, but I think in retrospect there's also some sub-conscious significance that he used a paragraph break.
BTW, this review you found is a great counterexample - it's of the same Taylor who apparently is not the most beautiful woman in the world, and he notes her pudge without being nasty about it. In the session he does many of the same physical things our original furious reviewer did - in fact starts doing things that make it difficult for her to breathe. But notice that he says "she loves it". It's not really relevant for our question here if that's true or not....he believes she does (or wants us to believe she does), and it seems important to him that she does. Her mindset matters. She is a human. So this is an 8-1 not rapey situation here.
So what's wrong with the urination in Sara's review? By itself, the urination is maybe a little weird, but harmless. But when it gets attached to everything that happened before, it takes on new meaning. Baseball cards. I'm going back to Hannibal Lecter. Nothing wrong with a nice chianti. (Or...is there?) But when you attach it to eating a liver, it becomes waaaay more sinister. "I ate his liver" could be a crazed maniac who's in some drug-induced or brain-damaged state and isn't fully aware of what he's doing. "I ate his liver with fava beans and a nice chianti" is now an outwardly civilized man in total control, shows he knows exactly what he's doing and has even planned it out in advance in a cold calculating way. Gives the sociopathy that extra umph. In this case, "She served her purpose" is DefCon 10 rapey sociopath. "She served her purpose. I urinated and left" (no paragraph break!) takes it to 11, Spinal Tap style. These are adjacent thoughts, so it's evocative of pissing on this object he just used, demeaned and disposed of. But it's also like a nice chianti in the way he uses the cold clinical term "urinated" instead of "took a piss" or "went to the bathroom". It's precisely because it's clinical that makes it extra extra creepy. Takes things from: this guy is a savage, to: this guy is a sociopath. Chilling. Most of us reacted to that at some level, even sub-consciously. That was 23 baseball cards right there: the Mantle, the DiMaggio, the Yogi, the Whitey Ford and a bunch of others, forming 1/3 of the face. It's all subconscious on his part as well I'm sure, but there's something there, I'm telling you.
Hey, I'm sure some of you will say I'm overthinking it. Well of course I am! Apparently I had to overthink it in order to articulate the intuition most of us had that this thing was so fucking creepy and so very very wrong. Even without knowing anything behind the scenes. So I had to try to figure out what precisely it is we sensed that others did not and why. I'll compare it to a major league outfielder who knows where the ball is going immediately - he doesn't stop to think: the exit velocity is about 95 mph at a 45 degree angle, and the wind is blowing at 15 mph from left to right, and it's a left-handed batter so the spin is going to make it hook right, and this is my best path to maximize my forward momentum on the catch for me to hit the cut-off man. He just knows. From the crack of the bat. From a lifetime of shagging flies. With this review, most of us just knew, from a lifetime of human experience...we knew even before we got to "She served her purpose". Some of the guys here have hope: they're decent infielders, but in the outfield might not get the best jump on the ball or slightly misjudge the angle and let a few drop in. Then some of them are DH's and while they might be able to handle their own bat pretty well, frankly seem totally lost in the outfield.
Make sense? Good. Glad we're all friends again. So if you'll excuse me, I must now take my leave and go explore the question of the day: should auld acquaintance be well fucked? Spoiler alert: there will be much shagging.
PS - No, going to art school doesn't mean you're a genocidal totalitarian war-mongering dictator. But it might show something's a little bit off. (I kid. I kid).