There used to be a rejection reason of "Too Explicit." Used mostly to avoid connecting names to specific acts.
The current adjudication list (below) excludes that. Curious if it's still a thing?
Spam / Advertisement Fake — Not a Genuine Visit Too Short / Not Enough Details Not a Review — Belongs on the Listing Discussion Board Incoherent or Poorly Written Offensive / Personal Attack Wrong Listing Not in English Appears AI-Generated
Replies (20)Latest
Listed or not my policy is not to get explicit with a dancers name. Why should I share a good thing? I only use a dancers name if she is a ROB in my opinion.
My take is it's common sense and it still applies. Just because it's not listed doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't use it as a reason to deny a review. Founder can't list every possible reason for review denials but my guess is that he just missed that reason when he was laying out the new format and it wouldn't surprise me if he adds it now.
@440viking - Yeah, I kind of figured it might have been inadvertently left off. But now if wanting to reject an explicit review, not quite sure which reason to pick. Tuscl forces a choice, so if there's no other reason to reject, I guess "Offensive" might be the closest option, paired with a brief explanation?
I can add that back in. Any other canned reasons you want? Any that should be removed?
@founder I'm thinking remove the Fake - Not a genuine visit. Tough to judge and there's other good options to select.
Thanks, @founder I found the "Explicit" reason very useful. Also, maybe an "Other" selection? Comments could then be added to explain any outlier situations.
If you like a dancer, you gotta want and help her to bank. Unless you like her so much she can bank just off of you. If she doesn't bank, why would she want to keep dancing?
Unless you think there's serious risk you'll get the club raided, seems OK to note how typical extras are there. When it comes to particular dancers, just describe their appearance, their personality, your level of interest in repeating, and (big one) how honest they are.
There are some clubs where extras are completely expected, performed by every dancer and even seem sanctioned by the management. In those clubs I have a different tolerance for how explicit the review is but I agree there is no good reason to call out a liberal dancer in a club where extras are rare. In a club where extras are expected, knowing what the going price might be is more helpful than knowing who will perform the act.
It is important to note that just describing a dancer might be outing her even more than using her fake name. “She had a six shooter tattooed on her hip” or “biggest boobs in the place” could easily uniquely identify and give up a girls activities, especially to management.
@founder - it is worth noting that defining what is explicit is greatly influenced by the tolerance level of the club. In many clubs around the country reporting that you got full service in the VIP room would apply to every girl present, so adding that to the review is no secret. In some other clubs, reporting that “Suzy let me touch her boobs” or “Suzy flashed her puss at me” could get Suzy fired or at least reprimanded. If you’re going to try and police “explicitness” of a review there should be a clear idea of what that means. Rather than calling the new reason to reject tag “too explicit”, I suggest “Links specific dancer to breaking club rules” or something like that. Otherwise some of the adjudicators (you know who they are) will reject every review that mentions “dancer touched patron in a sexual way”. This will result in the only reviews that get through the process to be vanilla descriptions of the furniture.
@623 from my understanding you can still put whatever you want in a review, and its just based on the approval ratings whether it posts or not. Have reviews been deleted after approval for containing a dancers name or being too explicit or something like that?
@623, @founder, it may make sense to phrase the option as “unnecessarily endangers club staff jobs or safety”
@623 has posted some great comments on this topic. I would like to reinforce two of them:
“It is important to note that just describing a dancer might be outing her even more than using her fake name.” Last week I was at a club two nights in a row where it’s extraordinarily rare to see a dancer who is not African American. The first night I got FS in the VIP from attractive Latina who had red hair. The second night, I did an absolutely incredible, ultra-high-mileage VIP with a white girl who was covered in tattoos. In each case, every other girl working was AA. For me to describe either of these girls would certainly have outed them to management or anyone else reading my review.
“Rather than calling the new reason to reject tag 'too explicit', I suggest ‘Links specific dancer to breaking club rules’ or something like that.” Like 623, I’m not sure that’s the best wording, in part because reviewers might not know what the club’s rules are, but I think this is worth further discussion and/or suggestions on how to word this.
I just read a review “ I filled my bag with cum”
Like seriously is that information necessary for a review? How is that helping a future patron?
Yes certain intel is useful but explicit details as such is just plain disgusting and unnecessary
@VanessaM - wording like that is not necessary but it does impart the information that the guy had sex to completion and that one or both of the parties wanted it covered for the act. That is two important ant pieces of information shared by someone who is uncouth and vulgar, but that’s how some guys talk especially in an online forum. If you can’t just ignore the language maybe your on the wrong web site researching the wrong profession.
@623 @sfrsox what you say might be true, but I think it's at least as likely, and probably more so, that the reviewer is just bragging.
@georgmicrodong bragging about cumming in the bag? Thats nonsensical- theres nothing to brag about lol. If anything it makes him look bad for not going bare or not cumming in the mouth, on boobs etc
@East Coaster, I agree in principle, but this a great message to the club to hire more dancers that fit that description
You have 99 AA and 1 non-AA, hire more non-AA
My rule of thumb is, if you name a sex act, don't name the dancer (or otherwise describe her in a way that makes her uniquely identifiable), and if you name/identify the dancer, don't name the sex act. I'm concerned about the dancer, not the club. That's what I used "Too Explicit" for. If it's not available, I'll find another way to downvote the review. People say stuff like "It's different in the PNW" etc, etc. Whatever. I generally don't adjudicate reviews from areas I don't visit unless they are blatantly deficient in other respects. I still think tying specific sex acts to specific dancers in a published review is a dick move
@Manuellabore - a good rule unless you’re reviewing a club in TJ or an FKK in Germany. When reviewing a club that exists because that’s where sex acts occur, it seems juvenile to not use her fake name. As ridiculous as the reviews that refer to Billy Joel, if your not mature enough to call it a blow job than you’re not mature enough to mention it at all.
each club and each girl is an individual situation... one size doesn't fit all.
Join the conversation
Sign in to reply to this discussion.