discussion comment
16 years ago
YMMV = Your mileage may vary. It's an old hobbying phrase, to refer to the fact that when you go to a particular venue (or even spend time with one particular girl), your experience might not exactly match the experience of another customer (or even your experience the last time you saw her). So if a girl let me have sex with her one time, it does not mean that you will be able to have sex with the same girl, or even that she will have sex with me the next time I see her.
In the case of the OP, I don't think this is actually a case of YMMV. Rather, I think it is a case of an "upsell," that is where the girl starts charging more, because she thinks she has you on the hook. When guys are in the VIP and they have a pile of money and a throbbing dick in their pants, they can often be talked into spilling a lot of that money in order to spill something else. It's called thinking with the little head.
discussion comment
16 years ago
David120
Don't take the other David's rude behavior personally. He's having a nervous breakdown. Go look at his bizarre rants at the end of the thread on "nonmonogamy". And no, he's never going to explain anything about his conduct on this site, because doing so would just force him to tell more lies, and he's already pretty tangled up in them.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Dudester
I sounds like you are say you would have NOT minded getting her pregnant. Fascinating.
discussion comment
16 years ago
arbeeguy: Sorry to cause you such consternation! I stay pretty on point, with all due respect. You don't see me starting a thread about the price of gas or the supreme court's latest decision on gun control. I think you'd agree that OTC experiences with girls is a pretty commmon topic on this board, and I think that's because a lot of guys either do it or would like to do it. I fail to see why it should be kept to a minimum; for some of us, it's greatly preferred to ITC experiences. If someone never wants to have sex, or at least never OTC, that's fine with me, but I don't know why I should feel guilty about feeling otherwise. My goal in going to a club is primarily for sex. Your goal might be completely different, and that's fine, but I don't see why your goal is "right" and mine is "wrong." As for escorts, I agree it's a different slice of the industry, but I don't agree it is completely unrelated. A lot of guys hobby in a variety of different ways -- some via strip clubs, some escorts, some amps. In a given week you might do all three (why not?). I believe we have entire articles on this site devoted to amps (not to mention a number of other extraneous subjects). I don't think this should be turned into an amp board or an escort board, but the topics do overlap. Just pointing out the analogy between a stripper who wants a level of trust before she goes OTC, and an escort who does the same, should not be that much of a flow disturber.
But I've blabbed. Tell me, why do you find discussions about OTC so offensive?
discussion comment
16 years ago
This is way off topic, and on an inherently controversial issue. What's next? Posts about abortion? Immigration? The presidential election? Let's stick to sex.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Dudester: you fuck her without a condom? We all get carried away sometimes (me too) but aren't you afraid of getting her pregnant?
shadowcat: I agree; trust is the key to OTC. That's why the high quality escorts will insist on getting your real name. There's an escort national "blacklist" where they keep keep track of guys who are crazy or violent or just rip off the girls. On the other hand TER has a white list where the girls can vouch for guys who are safe and reliable. If I'm interested in a girl, I will let her know my real name, show her my ID, etc., right out of the box, so she knows she can trust me.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Another non-sensical explanation. If someone was paranoid (about what? having his identity exposed? being caught as a strip club patron?) then that person would not be posting countless posts on the discussion board about his strip club exploits, nor would he be posting lengthy diatribes about seed spreading and alpha males. The discussion board is completely available to the public. If David were a $500K a year high roller, then all of his family members, neighbors, business colleagues, friends, etc. would be able to see these posts any time, without becoming a tuscl member or signing onto the site. Given David's, shall we say, "distinctive" writing style, anyone who knew him personally would spot him immediately. And since he posts all the time -- and often initiates threads -- he is a very conspicuous member of the discussion board.
Only the reviews are hidden from public view. A person trying to be UTR would post reviews, not long threads on the board.
Also, obviously, a person who had "healthy paranoia" would not go to several strip clubs adding up to 120 visits a year. You only do that if you don't give a shit about people knowing that you go to strip clubs.
I make a living catching people in lies. And there's a really good rule of thumb about lying: one lie invariably leads to another. That's what's happening with David.
discussion comment
16 years ago
As Shakespeare put it, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Anyone who really was in his mid-40s and making $500K per year would have enough self-confidence not to care what anyone else thought of him. Certainly he wouldn't care what anyone on tuscl thinks. No one in that station in life would be heatedly denying that he was a teenager -- e.g., posting two separate, desperate threads aimed at self-rehabilitation. On the other hand, a little worm who couldn't explain his way out of a web of lies would react in precisely that fashion.
Also, for what it's worth, someone earning $500K per year would not have the time to spend 240 hours per year (think about it -- that's six normal work weeks) in a strip clubs. High earners don't have that much free time -- between demanding careers, work related travel, family obligations, community and professional obligations, a lot of high earners have trouble just joining the wife and kids for a 1 week vacation. They are not spending 2 or 3 nights per week in a strip club -- and frankly they'd be too embarrassed to admit it if they were (it sounds low class and like an addiction). Poor people may not appreciate it but it is true -- one of the advantages they have over the rich is that they have much more free time.
[N.B.: Once upon a time strip club hopping was prevalent in certain business cultures (especially on Wall Street) but sexual harassment laws killed that, particularly after some of the major Wall Street firms were clipped in a few big cases. (The theory is that if you run a "boys club" workplace where the traders all go out to strip clubs, then you are discriminating against female employees who are denied the connections that go with those social opportunities.)]
So once again David's attempt to justify or explain himself makes him even less credible. David overreaches because he is constantly making things up and speaking from ignorance. He wants to sound important, so he says he earns $500K per year. It doesn't occur to him that earning that kind of living would impose on him a demanding work schedule, that would rule out spending much time on the hobby. It doesn't enter his imagination that a person at that station in life would have a lot of time-consuming obligations. It's sort of like my kids, who can't seem to grasp that if they want me to pay for the vacations and the lap tops and the pitching lessons (not to mention the things they don't even think about like the mortgage and the property taxes and the car payments), then they have to leave me alone sometimes so I can get my work done.
In short, David's overreaching is just what a kid would do, especially one who had an inflated opinion of himself. Don't just say you're well off, say you earn half a million a year. Don't just claim to go to strip clubs, but claim to go 120 times a year. It's a child's mistake, because we are dealing with a child.
As for DickJohnson: I love you too, man. Group hug.
discussion comment
16 years ago
It's ok David, my cross exam of you is over. You can get off the stand now. Any reasonable fact finder will see you for what you are -- a fraud.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Well, I won my little bet, to no one's surprise. But you were right to refuse to answer, because you wouldn't have been able to answer the next question. And anyone can see you're losing your cool because you've been exposed as a pathetic fraud.
discussion comment
16 years ago
That was a child's answer, David. The question is not whether you have to write, the question is what is your excuse for not writing them. You write a series of self-contradictory and very suspicious posts. When you are called on to explain anything, you won't give a straight answer. Given your lack of reviews, the logical conclusion is you are making everything up.
Would you like to try a different approach? Here's a simple one. You say you are worth over $1 million, and that you make $500K per year. Well, gee, then you must be a pretty well traveled guy, for both work and pleasure. So certainly you've been to NYC several times, right? (Think hard before you answer that one David. It's a trap. Here's betting you won't answer.)
discussion comment
16 years ago
But you still can't post a review. These are really simple questions to answer for anyone who is not full of shit. Keep bobbing and weaving David it shows what a bullshit artist you are.
discussion comment
16 years ago
No jablake, those guys lose their licenses if they get caught. You are not allowed to have sex with your patients, whatever the excuse.
David: instead of trying to bob and weave on the board, or bolster your sinking credibility with more posts about fake encounters that you've never had, why don't you post just one review about an actual strip club that you've supposedly been to? If nothing else, it will be good for a laugh to hear a 15 year old boy describe what he imagines the inside of a stip club to be like.
discussion comment
16 years ago
jablake
The medical purposes exception is for medical exams, because in those instances it is necessary for the doctor to touch the patient's breasts or genitals (and the doctor is being paid money to do so). It's not so doctors can fuck their patients.
The exception for spouses is to avoid any argument that because one spouse is giving the other money or some other benefit that therefore prostitution is involved.
We can assume, I think, that any guy going into a strip club is not being attended to by a doctor or his wife. Again, can defendants try to make somewhat ridiculous defenses? Yes. The D.C. madam who recently committed suicide maintained during her trial that she had absolutely no idea the girls were having sex with the customers -- but no one believed her and she was convicted anyway.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
I love Kinison's shtick on SNL about Jesus -- one of the most irreverent things I've ever seen.
discussion comment
16 years ago
jablake
There are some bad judges in the world but I think most of them are pretty decent. I am sure you had a bad experience, but it was a singular experience. I am speaking from experience spanning decades and hundreds of cases.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of laypeople (nonlawyers in this context) have only a very slight grasp of how the legal system works, even with their own cases. It would be impossible to meaningfully evaluate your case without having the entire file, frankly, but the great likelihood is that the problem lay less with the court than with your lawyer. When I have seen people get screwed it is more often because the lawyer mishandled the case than anything else. The big exception, I think, is family court, where the disregard for the law from the bench is extreme.
Just my $0.02.
discussion comment
16 years ago
jablake
Respectfully, there is a difference between a debate about how a law is interpreted, and a debate about what the facts in a particular case are. A john and a prostitute can claim that they didn't have sex; or that the sex had nothing to do with money. And a jury can either believe them or not. But there's no doubt that paying money for sex is illegal. David has previously claimed he only does "pay for play" because having a civilian mistress would supposedly put his vast fortune at risk. But then he is violating laws against prostitution. Remember we go down these little paths because David starts with one lie (he's getting all these hot chicks to go after him), and then another (he has to use only hookers because he has such great wealth that he needs to protect it), and then another (he would never do anything to put his wealth at risk), and then another (he would never violate the law). David's stories are some of the more obvious bits of fakery on this board, and as he has gotten more and more tangled up in his lies, his whoppers have just gotten bigger and bigger -- look at his crazy stupid post about "spies" in the club. I gave David just enough rope to hang himself and he did it in about two days. He is as phony as a three dollar bill.
discussion comment
16 years ago
jablake
State laws on prostitution vary, obviously. But the general principle is that prostitution is defined as performing a sexual act for hire. And "sexual act" is usually defined pretty broadly, and does not require, for example, penetration or climax. A lot of the very low level stuff that occurs in most clubs (e.g., rubbing guys dicks) nonetheless counts as prostitution.
You are correct that all laws, including the criminal laws against prostitution, are subject to interpretation. But you are incorrect in your belief that that makes it completely open ended. The interpretation of the laws becomes established over time in the case law develped by the courts, and those decisions are given just as much legal force as the statutes themselves. In fact much of our civil legal system is based purely on "judge made" law, i.e., the common law, which has been around since before this country was even formed. So while statutes can be subject to interpretation, there is no question that if you go into a club, pay $200 for a VIP room, and then pay $300 to have the girl fuck you, you have violated the law against prostitution.
Had David taken the sensible position (that he was violating the law, but felt he was unlikely to get caught) his post would have made more sense. Instead, he took an utterly idiotic and indefensible position, that he is somehow not violating the law. Pressed several times to explain how he is not violating the law, he can't give a straight answer, for the simple reason that there is no honest answer to that question. Either David is lying about not violating the law, or he is lying about being a gentleman horndog who has sex with strippers.
David got himself into that corner when he overreached with his comment about the Mann Act -- something a teenager would bring up, but not something a lawyer would bring up. A lawyer would know that the Mann Act (which is a federal law, not a state law) is going to be enforced by federal prosecutors. Federal prosecutors follow a set of guidelines issued by the Justice Department, which set forth when certain crimes should and should not be prosecuted. (Because there are a potentially limitless number of crimes that could be prosecuted at any point in time, all prosecutors are invested with discretion over which potential cases to pursue.) At any rate, the federal guidelines provide, with regard to the Mann Act, that prosecutions against end users (i.e., johns) are discouraged, unless they involve minors. But a nonlawyer teenage boy like David wouldn't know that, because he's never been to college, much less law school.
Every time David starts yapping away the contradictions pile up, and he reveals himself to be a phony. Then you start thinking, gee, what could be the reason that this guy never ever posts even one review? And then the answer becomes obvious: he can't post a review, because he is not permitted to see the inside of a club.
Any person can get on this site and post on the discussion board, they don't need to be a grown up. My kids take perverse pleasure out of going on the net and pretending to be adults on various web sites. That's all David is doing. No one should take this punk seriously.
discussion comment
16 years ago
David
Once again you didn't answer the question little boy. And the reason is because everything you say is shit. You're a 15 year old who has never set foot in a strip club -- which is why your posts are filled with senseless crap, and why you can't post a review. I've cross examined lawyers and tied them in knots, so cross examining a teenager like you has not been hard. Now get off your computer and go to bed before you get in trouble with your mommy.
discussion comment
16 years ago
As is always the case with David, when trapped in a corner, he just bobs and weaves. It's pretty simple: either he had sex in exchange for the $5000 he paid for the "ultra hot" girl, or he didn't. If the former, he broke the law. If the latter, all his big talk about being an alpha male is in the toilet (jesus even when he pays five grand he still can't get any pussy!). He won't answer the question, so instead we get treated to another glob of shit about seed spreading. The problem with lying is that invariably the liar gets caught in the web of his own lies and can't escape. That's David's core problem. It's funny how easy it is to cross examine him.
discussion comment
16 years ago
David says: "By the way, I've violated no laws as written in any jurisdiction in the United States."
Once again your posts aren't making loads of sense. There are only two places in the U.S. where prostitution in any form is legal, R.I. and Nevada. Neither one, however, would involve fucking a stripper at a club. In R.I., brothels are illegal, so paying the club for access to a stripper (for sex) would violate the law. In Nevada (and not in Las Vegas) there are legal brothels, but they are brothels, not strip clubs.
So once again your "story" is not adding up. If you are paying to have sex with a stripper in the club (and you say you are paying the club $1500 just for access to the vip room and the stripper) then you are indeed violating the law. If you are instead paying $5000 and not getting any sex at all, then you are the gentleman eunuch.
Add to your nonsensical statements the fact that you have never posted a review once, and I am compelled to conclude that you have never set foot in a strip club (and never had sex with a woman), and that your posts are the product of an imaginative 15 year old mind.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Mann Act prosecutions are selective and rare -- they primarily occur when there is a minor involved, or the john is well known for some reason. You are much more likely to attract LE attention at a local level by spending days in a club fucking one girl and waiving around 1000s of dollars. People like me who spend relatively little money and stay UTR do not attract LE attention.
As for civil liability, you committed a tort by grabbing the girl's arm, and took a much greater risk of her bringing a claim against you for assault (not to mention the risk of being tossed out of the club). Precisely because I never disrespect the girls for anything, I never run the risk of an altercation. That's why bartenders don't get in arguments with me; we treat each other with mutual respect. The bartender who dissed you was probably right. You probably are a wise ass punk.
If you had a lot of money (which I doubt) you would be putting it at great risk by your behavior in the club. You draw a lot of attention to yourself (spending lots of money; getting in arguments with staff; grabbing a dancer in full view of everyone for several minutes). The result is that the staff will make a point of learning your real name, and so dozens of people in the club will know who you are. If you show everyone you have tons of money, you will be scammed or blackmailed. You probably already are being scammed, and the only reason you haven't been blackmailed (yet) is because you are still a useful cash cow to them. Guys who spend less money, are less ostentatious and stay firmly UTR are much less likely to get into that kind of trouble.
Everything you post confirms my suspicion that you are not the high roller you pretend to be. A person who was making seven figures a year would not be spending weeks in a single club on a single girl -- for a host of reasons: you wouldn't have time; you wouldn't risk the entanglements; there are better ways to get pussy brought to you if you have that much money; you wouldn't risk being found out by colleagues and friends, etc., etc. The super rich usually have a reputation to protect (not to mention a wife who would fleece them in divorce court), so they are not going to hang out in a club in front of everyone all day. Add to that your repeatedly ill informed statements (e.g., re the Mann Act), your illogical rants about seed spreading, and your gelatinous prose (oh, and your failure to ever post even one review), and I have serious doubts that you're gainfully employed, much less the high rolling alpha male you pretend to be.
discussion comment
16 years ago
jablake: I did not understand your last post.
discussion comment
16 years ago
evilvyn: Extras are commonplace at one of the SCs I frequent. One of the girls there tells me some of the guys cum VERY fast -- literally less than 60 seconds after their dick is out. Sounds like they would be good candidates for poppong in their pants from a bump & grind. This girl thought it was hilarious, but my reaction was that any guy who cums that easily must be rubbish in bed.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I'll agree I should keep my posts shorter; fair criticism. I do think it is somewhat ironic that you of all people would accuse another person of "hogging" the board. I also think anyone looking at our posts will see I almost never post about non-sex related topics. I don't think you can make the same claim.