New Approach to 'Newest Reviews'?

[Guest Skeptic]

Today's (May 22) reviews have set me thinking about this part of the site, which, strictly speaking, should be the main focus of interest for visitors here. (I know that what really draws most of us is the richness and variety of the message board exchanges; but as entertaining and informative as those postings are, Hooboy's p. 1 mission statement makes it plain that formal critiques--first appearing as 'Newest Reviews' and then archived under 'Escorts by Region'--are the very heart & soul of Male4Malescorts.

 

Some of the problems encountered in meeting this goal have been aired recently by Hooboy & others in the message center--the threads about the number, spacing, & shelf-life of reviews on any given escort, for example. But no consensus was ever reached on those interrelated issues (none I'm aware of, anyway), and today's batch of reviews suggests that there are even further problems to confront. Let me touch on three of them.

 

First, the Gaiety reviews. Perhaps it's just an accident (and one that might already have been righted by the time I post this), but today's 'newest reviews' are in fact the withered Mothers' Day corsage from May 14. In a way, it doesn't really matter, since those reviews were already faded when they first appeared--and this, of course, is due to the fact that NYO, attending either or both of the marathon evenings (Fri or Sat nights) and often filing his report as late as Monday, isn't giving an inquiring reader any information he can act on--at least not at that particular time. NYO & Hooboy have periodically admitted as much, but no steps have been taken to give these Gaiety reviews the practical, immediate value they ought to have.

 

NYO laments the fact that Denise has no website--where, he says, she could at least tell us in advance who's dancing in any given week--but it seems scarcely necessary to launch a whole site to do just that. Besides, as NYO and most Gaiety regulars know, the 'card' is never finalized until about 1:30 PM, curtain-time for the first show on Monday, and anyone who wants to the names of the Seven Dancing Princes he'll find on view through Sunday can find out in a one-minute call to the box office at the appointed hour. (Be prepared to write the names down fast, though: Denise rattles them off like a oldtime tobacco auctioneer!) Given that fact, why can't NYO, or some other responsible party, post the line-up on the message board every Monday afternoon AS A MATTER OF COURSE. Or even better, why not encourage posters to file the line-up, plus mini-reviews of the whole 7-dancer show, as early in the week as possible (Monday or Tuesday). I remember Newbie or someone doing precisely that during the famous 'Billy Brandt week,' and there have been other such very helpful filings since.

But it should be more than just a 'sometime thing,'so, however this matter is addressed--and it's really not an unsurmountable problem--I wish Hooboy would give it some thought & put a new policy into effect.

 

Second issue. Despite the fact that Hooboy (as recently as Saturday) advised us that he was a good 3 weeks behind in processing reviews, this morning, lo & behold, we have Assmaster's rhapsodic account of his meeting (was it just last night or Saturday nite?) with the now-much-discussed Tony Pitt. This is terrific! (Reminds me of the old days in NYC, when theatrical & musical reviews would appear the very next morning in the Times, Trib, and later in the day in the Journal-American!) Obviously Hooboy made an editorial decision--and a very wise one IMHO--to move this review to the very top of the queue. Why, though? He doesn't tell us in that section or in the News section, and yet it's pretty obvious that the current topicality of the 'Tony Pitt' controversy (on the message board), plus the proven track record of a respected regular like Assmaster, must have had a lot to do with it. Well, I for one, am in favor of such decisive editorial action, and I wish H would indulge his right as webmaster to do even more along those lines.

 

The last issue involves an editorial decision of quite a different sort. Here we have a 'review' that is more likely than not a deliberate, spitefully-driven defamation of an escort, in which a previously unknown 'Green621' alleges very serious charges of misconduct (ethical failures, if not criminal acts) against someone called Nick#2. This is followed by a 'Nick Responds' message in which, given the allegation, Nick defends himself in a remarkably calm & temperate way (adding further to his credibility, I'd say). Nowhere in this extraordinary pairing of charge/countercharge is there there a 'Hooboy investigates' aside, or even one of those 'you-be-the-judge' icons! My question, then: why post this review AT ALL without a complete and rigorous inquiry into who's telling the truth here. The controversary, remember, is based neither on 'subjective' ambiguities or complaints of the 'he was a good 30 lbs. heavier/lighter than claimed' variety, but on a very, very serious charge of misconduct against this escort. It doesn't seem fair to have it posted as possibly true on the usual he said/he said basis. Why even raise a DOUBT along these lines about someone who is very probably not-guilty-as-charged?

 

Finally, I hope that all those who value or despise my postings here will see from the above that my motives are, for better or worse, serious and well-considered. (Indeed, they keep me from answering the otherwise flattering film proposals lofted yesterday. I will reply to this extent, however: Dr. Lecter was not at AT ALL amused by Jake's suggestion that I be played by Anthony Hopkins. He pointed out that it would raise unprecedented 'transference problems' between us, seriously compromising an already complicated course of therapy.)

[Guest paulnyc]

Tony Pitt

 

I for one didn't find it fair that Assmaster's review of Tony Pitt moved to the head of the line when other reviews have been waiting for months to appear. Granted, it is Hooboy's site but if there are policies about reviews, then they should apply to all. Otherwise, don't have such policies.

[Guest Matt In Vancouver]

I'm only going to respond to a portion of the message posted by skeptic, and that is RE: the gaiety. Although I was just there on Saturday, and had a great time, I should point out that this site is an international site, therefore a weekly lineup of the dancers at the Gaiety isn't really a crucial part of the information. That being said, I do realize that a large percetage of the viewers of this site are New Yorkers, and I'm sure it is appreciated that a weekly review is here(thank you NYO: ) it should stay as part of the site, but there are far more immediate issues regarding the content of this site. Like ensuring current reviews are up to date, etc...

I'm sure that space is an issue, so is it absolutly crucial to use this space for dancers? And for that matter a New York only issue.( I know I know you are the center of the universe as we know it, but c'mon: ) Maybe a seperate section? or maybe someone should create a gaiety site?? NYO??? maybe then you'll get in for free, damn I can't believe after all you've done for that place you are still paying the entrance fee... someone should start a fund to keep NYO from going to the poorhouse for his much anticipated weekly reviews. Just a thought.

Matt

[NY Observer]

LAST EDITED ON May-22-00 AT 10:44PM (EST)[p]Skep,

 

Maybe I should quit my day job to be able to post reviews at your whim, would you like them emailed to your email address so you can get them by 5pm Monday? Maybe if you refreshed, you'd have the current reviews, which Hooboy posted almost immediately after I submitted it. I don't feel it's my responsibility to call Denise to post the lineup. If I happen to go early in the week, I post what I know. As far as the reviews, I intentionally post them on my last visit to the Gaiety for that week, sometimes I change my mind. With the new dancers coming in on Friday night, it's hard to post a review of them on Monday or Tuesday.

 

You are an ingrate, if you don't like my schedule, don't do me the favor of reading my column.

[Guest Skeptic]

Where did I say I actually READ your column, puss? (I'm sure I must have now & then, but months ago--before the foot-fetish thing started giving me the creeps.)

 

My point today was made on behalf of those who presumably seek information they might have some practical use for. The review of a play that has already folded (so to speak) isn't very helpful, is it? Or is your 'column' really just some sort of ego trip--what Fortuin described as the 'overriding narcissism at the core' of your posting?

[Guest longtimelurker]

Skeptic, now I know the identity of the busy signal I encounter when I call Denise for the new Monday lineup at 1:32pm--

 

Anyway, I've recently had similar thoughts, so with all apologies to NYO (and to Matt of Vancouver) here goes with a very amateurish early week rundown as observed at the 8:30 pm show:

 

1. CAMERON

A fine featured, crop-topped blond with an earring in each ear, Cameron has a long, impressively ridged torso with a small, very shapely butt, and a not so small, very shapely erection. What others (not I) would call a twink, he is smooth with the right amount of peach fuzz, masculine enough, and, I suspect, gay. NYO would give high marks for the barefoot second act.

 

2. KEVIN

I believe Kevin has put on quite a bit of weight, but even in his newly stocky state he is an attractive boy. A brunette with the EXACT smile of the Gerber Baby-Food Baby, he has the smoothest, most kissable asshole (you read that right) I've ever seen. Pucker up, Assmaster!

 

3. JUSTIN

Not the Justin you might think, this likable eccentric has returned with bleached hair and newly pierced nipples that look almost painful. Another stocky but defined body, he does handstands and dances his second dance in white ankle socks while making wacky asides to the audience.

 

4. CHRISTOPHER

No twink, this man has thinning, sandy hair, impressive shoulders, huge, chewable nipples, and a goatee. Not at all my type, but I can see that he is attractive. None of the "stars" this week are especially good dancers, but Christopher moves with an awkward, yet powerful, sexiness.

 

5. RAUCHA

If you can look beyond the nearly disfiguring tattoos, Raucha sports a very impressive physique, an amazing, er--vividly colored member, and a powerfully sexual aura. He has a harsh face which becomes kind when he smiles. He is often called the Fantasy Man by the various Gaiety announcers, but alas, despite his apparent kindness, he is not mine; I cannot get past the tattoos. My loss, I'm sure. NYO, however, would be delighted: Raucha sat down on the stage and removed his boots during his FIRST song.

 

6. NICHOLAS

Very cute! A smooth, beautiful body topped with a child's face--in fact, he bears a marked facial resemblance to the protagonist of Spielberg's animated "A Mouse's Tale." Not the body, however--that's a dream, not a cartoon. He hides beautiful wheat-colored hair beneath a stupid baseball cap, moves gracefully on stage (Assmaster would be especially pleased with some of his moves) despite a tendency to walk like Popeye when off (what is it with all the cartoon references?) and a session in the tanning booth has left unfortunate shadows in the nether regions. Believe it or not, after such an oddly mixed review, Nicholas would be my choice this week for a little self- indulgence--except I'm still besotted with the memory of Sebastian...

 

7. GUY

Bleached, punkish hair, beautiful body, tattoos as beautiful as poor Raucha's are ugly, a slighty wasted, Jagger-esque rock star face, a large cock, and like Raucha, a very sexual aura. He looks like serious business.

 

I hope the above is of some use, and I hope that others will add their own impressions--or reports of their dalliances and adventures!

[Guest Skeptic]

Lurker, you have put me in an impossible position!

 

I was already feeling some regret at having answered NYO so brutually. But his petulance, his childish defensiveness, his willful refusal to see that my words were not an attack on him personally--all these had made me lose patience with him. Then, even as I was brooding on this, you appear, as if by magic, providing a dazzling example of precisely what I'd wished we could have!

 

But how can I sing the praises of your extraordinary post without being even more brutal to the hapless NYO?

 

No! An awed silence is my proper response. But I hope others, many others, will speak.

[Guest Jake]

Christ, you just got me hard, Skeptic.

[NY Observer]

Thanks Lurker,

 

I enjoyed your reviews.

 

For my selfish purposes, I'm sad to hear Les Trois Quebecois (Kevin, Christopher and Nicholas) are back in NYC the week I'll be in Montreal. Oh well.

[Guest Skeptic]

Let's just hope you don't get blue balls, too.

[Guest longtimelurker]

Oops! Well, as I have had occasion to say before, thanks for the kind words. Honestly, I don't know how NYO manages to crank 'em out every week (you should excuse the expression) as I certainly couldn't; review writing is harder than it looks, I think--so much detail just gets lost when typing in this tiny little gray window...

 

However, this week's lineup is a fairly attractive, interesting batch, and, I think, relatively easy to write about (some weeks the only possible response IS silence), so let's hear a few more impressions from the gallery-- and be VERY glad that THEY (the dancers) are not reviewing OUR biceps and waistlines!

[Paul Revere]

Oh Skep, What to say, what to say?

 

I sometimes like your posts, sometimes I even agree with you, and sometimes you are amusing. But this time you are way off base on the Gaiety review thing.

 

I guess it would be more convenient for you if NY Observer sat with his laptop at the first show on Monday, and entered his review in real time for your convenience. Yes, I appreciate the information earlier, but if you really care about who is working on a given week, give Denise a call yourself, and do the posting for the rest of us.

 

You seem to have taken the position the NYO and all other reviewers should be posting here for your convenience and gratification. All postings are voluntary, and are done because of the unselfish motives of the posters to share what will hopefully be useful information. Sure some is more useful than others, and sometimes we don't care about some escorts or some geographic regions, but usually there is someone who benefits from each piece of information.

 

I have acted as guest reviewer for NYO when he was sick one weekend, and I have written a lengthly review of a weekend at Campus in Montreal. And let me tell you (and LTLurker has just confirmed) it is a lot of work. Especially when you are working from memory. You need to write, read, proof-read, edit, revise, then post, and then usually you remember stuff you left out. It is a lot of work, and we should be grateful for NYO's work. I did not fully appreicate it until I did it myself. Maybe you should try it this weekend while NYO is in Montreal. I am looking forward to hearing his perspective on his visit to Cananda.

 

I even got one fan letter after my Campus review. It made all of the work worthwhile. I was happy to provide useful information to others who appreciate it.

 

Sure it would be more convenient for you, if, as LTL did today, someone posts an instant review of the Gaiety, but NYO, and all of us have jobs and lives which prevent us from meeting your reviewing needs. Sure the newspapers print reviews the next morning, but those reviewers are being paid, and they get into the show for free.

 

Longtimelurkers review today, now actually poses a dilemna for me, as now I want to go to New York this weekend to spend quality time with Kevin. If I didn't know he was there, I wouldn't be tempted (and my May budget is shot already).

 

So Skep, chill a little when dealing with work that is being done on a volunteer basis by those who are trying to help others. Ideally we could get Denise to install a Web Cam, and you could get real-time live updates of who is dancing, and review them for yourself. And although I understand the Nob Hill Theatre in S.F. has installed the Web Cam, I beleive that the odds of Denise doing that at the Gaiety are about the same as her becomign charming and warm.

 

BTW, I don't consider Julie Brown to be C&W. C&W is just about the only kind of music I can't stomach (OK, Heavy Metal really sucks too). The other classic Julie Brown song is "Prom Queen's Got A Gun"

[Bilbo]

NYO - I used to review (for a mere pittance) plays, movies, etc. for Houston free gay weeklies. I know that there is a lot of work involved. However, even though my husband at the time was a drag queen, I only reviewed a drag show once. For the reason cited above, ie news which is too old to use is not news, and it was a newspaper. My suggestion would be to keep a file of the dancers. Then a simple three minute phone call would tell you which names are available that week, a reference to your files (copy and paste) would give you your review and you past it. Please don't carry on like it would take hours. Then, at your leisure, you can visit in person, update your file on the young men if their actions warrant it, and for your own pride at being up to the moment, cut and paste it again. Again, the only part of all that that would take hours are the pleasant ones spent ogling the male pulchritude. (F..., my spelling is, as usual, lousy. But what's a few peccadillos amongst friends.)

[Will]

I agree about the Gaiety reviews' being perhaps a little too parochial for an international site. Not all of us are New Yorkers; and even those of us who are might not think our time well-spent by window-shopping for straight rip-off artists at the Gaiety.

 

As those reviews displace one of a single escort who might live outside the New York area, would it be possible to post the Gaiety reviews on a separate part of the site, something comparable to the Message Center? It might be convenient to have all the reviews in one place anyway, for cross-reference research by the mavens of darkened rooms.

[Guest Skeptic]

Now wait a minute, Paul! Just as NYO did, you, too, seem to be misconstruing my original post. Why? Without going back to re-read it myself (which I know I should have done before starting this post to you), I'm fairly certain that I never attacked NYO personally regarding the unfortunate timing of the Gaiety reviews. I just deplored the fact that things had to be that way, and wished there were some means of getting the 411 plus descriptions on the 'weekly seven' when it could still be of practical use to lust-driven balletomanes. Moreover, I NEVER said or implied that I considered this a service or convenience due ME from NYO or anybody else: it was a matter of keeping New Yorkers & NY visitors informed about Gaiety prospects in a timely manner--hardly an unreasonable take on a feature that aspires to be a review of available talent.

 

As you may have figured out already, I'm regularly in NYC (when not in DC), and capable not only of ringing up Denise for the lineup, but going to the Gaiety myself virtually whenever I want to. Moreover, I've more than once advised fellow posters to call for the list of names, and even provided (as I now do for the fourth or fifth time since January) the relevant number-- 212-221-8868--and the best time to call (just before Monday afternoon's first show).

 

Why, then, do you join in accusing me of treating info freely offered and shared here as something posted for my private convenience? (Believe it or not, even Skeptic's feelings can be hurt; and they are now, when I consider the wealth of really useful information I've strewn all over this site for the benefit of others. Check it out sometime--and please don't come back and tell me that all these postings are mere displays of 'narcissism' on my part.)

 

NYO, after his wholly wrong-headed post to me (full of straw-man issues, grade-school sarcasm and cries of 'ingrate!') got a rough reply. But, as you see, I immediately regretted being brutal to someone so plainly ill-equipped to defend himself in kind, and said as much to Lurker.

 

In truth, I DO read NYO's 'column,' and am just as inclined as you to laugh off the foot-fetish as one of his little foibles, but his seemingly willful misreading of what I'd written annoyed me greatly--and thus the contempt then heaped upon him. You, too, I'm sorry to say, seem to have misread some of that original post, but it serves no purpose to parse all that out now, and I'm sure it wasn't intentional anyway. Moreover, I'm sure that it was as much motivated by a kindly need to 'protect' and support NYO as by any other consideration.

 

Suffice it to say that I fully understand how hard & time-consuming it is to review anything; that I appreciated & enjoyed your Campus review; and that, even if I value Lurker's wonderfully succinct & witty style of commentary over NYO's belated reports, I certainly wouldn't want the latter to disappear from these boards.

 

As for Bilbo's post, without getting into the nuts & bolts of it, I fully agree that some form of cross-referencing derived from a special 'Gaiety' database is a tip-top idea. And it's exactly the sort of thing computers are good at doing.

[HooBoy]

The Gaiety reviews do not displace any escort reviews. The Gaiety has it's own folder. When they hit my computer, they go up, usually within a few minutes of NYO submitting them. That's why there is a Gaiety tab at the top of the page. New Yorkers should check that regularly on the weekends because that changes separately when all esle is being compiled.

 

Remember to REFRESH or you'll see the old reviews even tho the new one is online like Skeptic did this week. And REFRESH the window the review appears in.

 

HooBoy

Email: HooBoy@male4malescorts.com

[NY Observer]

Ok, I accept your apology (this time)

 

Seriously, I write the reviews as informational and entertainment. It's a lot of work and it has become harder over time, trying to come up with interesting material. Aside from the expense of going to the show, tipping, a possible private, it takes a lot of my time writing this thing. I enjoy it and (for now) intend to continue.

 

I definitely do not have the desire to call up and find out who's there this week (I can barely understand Denise in the first place) and then search for their last review and plop it into a "review". Anyone can do that themselves if they are so inclined. Part of my review is the interaction with the crowd, things I hear while I'm there, just general tidbits, feelings of the moment, etc. As long as I am doing the review, I will post after my last (intended) visit. If someone wants to do an early week review, that's great, I certainly welcome it and love hearing who's there on a given week. If someone calls and finds out Justin is working this week, which of the three Justin reviews should I use? I have a good job, which allows me the luxury of doing privates with these guys (more often than I should). I don't intend to lose it in order to post a review Monday or Tuesday night.

 

I have brought in a lot of business to the Gaiety, just by the presence of the reviews. If out of towners want to know things about a partcular dancer, they can call Denise and if they can understand her, find out who's on the card and look back, the same as Bilbo suggested I do.

 

I do this review for a lot of reasons. I do not expect special treatment from the Gaiety (I pay the same entry fee as everyone else) or the dancers (I have not been given or offered a free private yet). I know that some of the dancers know who I am at this point, but I don't feel it's changed our relationship/interaction. Well, maybe they spend a few extra seconds in front of me on their second number or maybe they give me an extra smile, but heck, I'm worth it

 

As for my barefooted comments, I intend to continue them. I do not, repeat, do not, have a foot fetish. I do find it much more sexy when a guy comes out TOTALLY nude as opposed to with big clodhopper boots on. Enough said (until my next review)

 

Hey Skeptic, do you want to offer to do the review next Monday you're in town?

[Guest Skeptic]

Sure, I'd be delighted to give it a bash, and I certainly hope that others--not just the virtuosic Lurker, but such keen-eyed observers as Assmaster, Jake, and other regulars--would similarly volunteer. Seems to me a posting filed as late as Tuesday afternoon would be timely enough to be helpful to the discerning shopper, and the reviewer could use any format he pleases as long as the basic info is conveyed.

 

Yes, as noted, Denise's accent & speed of delivery pose problems, but I find that running an old SNL tape of John Belushi's 'Cheeburger! Cheeburger!' routine can work wonders as a warmup for the call.

 

Years ago, there was a truly gorgeous str8 boy from rural Pennsylvania who appeared briefly at the Gaiety (a few marathons, two or three weeklies) under the name of "Dane". His beauty was so overwhelmingly, quintessentially Italian (think the dark-eyed heartbreakers you'd see on the docks of Naples or Capri) that the name seemed ridiculously inappropriate. When I later asked him why he hadn't chosen a more evocative moniker--perhaps Vito or Angelo (instead of such a Falcon Studio wax-fruit label), he explained that the whole thing had been an accident.

 

Apparently, when Dan (his REAL name) was about to make his debut, Denise phoned in the line-up to the fellow who hand-lettered the signs they used to post downstairs (remember those days?), and thus transmuted by Denise-speak, this living Caravaggio was once and forever advertised as "Dane".

[Guest Skeptic]

Sure, I'd be delighted to give it a bash, and I certainly hope that others--not just the virtuosic Lurker, but such keen-eyed observers as Assmaster, Jake, and other regulars--would similarly volunteer. Seems to me a posting filed as late as Tuesday afternoon would be timely enough to be helpful to the discerning shopper, and the reviewer could use any format he pleases as long as the basic info is conveyed.

 

Yes, as noted, Denise's accent & speed of delivery pose problems, but I find that running an old SNL tape of John Belushi's 'Cheeburger! Cheeburger!' routine can work wonders as a warmup for the call.

 

Years ago, there was a truly gorgeous str8 boy from rural Pennsylvania who appeared briefly at the Gaiety (a few marathons, two or three weeklies) under the name of "Dane". His beauty was so overwhelmingly, quintessentially Italian (think the dark-eyed heartbreakers you'd see on the docks of Naples or Capri) that the name seemed ridiculously inappropriate. When I later asked him why he hadn't chosen a more evocative moniker--perhaps Vito or Angelo (instead of such a Falcon Studio wax-fruit label), he explained that the whole thing had been an accident.

 

Apparently, when Dan (his REAL name) was about to make his debut, Denise phoned in the line-up to the fellow who hand-lettered the signs they used to post downstairs (remember those days?), and thus transmuted by Denise-speak, this living Caravaggio was once and forever advertised as "Dane".

 

NOTE: Sory if this ends up double-posted; software seems quirky this AM.

[NY Observer]

Anytime you want the pen, Skep, let me know. Just don't mention the "b" word or I'll come down on you like a ton of bricks.

[Guest Skeptic]

Though I hadn't been aware I needed anyone's permission to post a review of the Gaiety (or, indeed, anything else here), your little caveat seems reasonable enough: as some of you know all too well, I can easily come up with at least half-a-dozen synonyms for 'bogus' with the greatest of ease.

 

And didn't you forget to tack a smiley on the end of your gracious invitation?

[NY Observer]

OOPS

 

I tried to add the smileys this morning, but got an error message, I can only change my message up to 120 minutes after I submit my message. Sorry about that

 

I'll make it up to you somehow, Skeppie

[Guest Jake]

>Sure, I'd be delighted to give

>it a bash, and I

>certainly hope that others--not just

>the virtuosic Lurker, but such

>keen-eyed observers as Assmaster, Jake,

>and other regulars--would similarly volunteer.

 

 

While I'm flattered at the mention, I would hardly consider myself a "regular." I will admit that NYO has intrigued me enough to attend a Friday night fete four or five times this year. But I can barely distinguish one body from the next. After dancer three or four it's amazing how similar the cocks look. Ever since I quit smoking, I cannot be confined to those woefully uncomfortable seats and have been known to show my admiration for a particular dancer by crash diving a $5'er towards the stage. Perhaps, dear Skeptic, if we attended together I could be persuaded to stay in my seat.