Bilko.
I readily believe that this chica was promised $200TLN by this guy and that, after she spent all that time with him, he ditched her without leaving her even taxi fare. If think we can all agree that there is no excuse for a guy doing something like that but I also think we all know such things DO happen. HOWEVER, while most of her account is both credible and deplorable, certain ELEMENTS of it beg my credulity. Like El O said:
El Ornitorrinco wrote:
Convincing security to keep a girl out of the DR is low...so you don't want to session with her, why would you keep her from finding another guy? Phuck...

I have no idea who "M" is, so admittedly my disbelief is based on "sweeping generalizations based on your perception of what all sex workers (or women perhaps) are like"

, but that part of "M's" story doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not saying she is outright lying, but most chicas are known to at least stretch the truth, exaggerate the facts, shade their depiction of what happened, embellish on what actually happened and/or selectively omit key elements.
Of course its possible this guy simply changed his mind about doing TLN with her (like she suggests) after spending a significant portion of her working time with him. Whether they had a pre-agreed $200TLN deal worked out or not that is simply WRONG. Time is money for these chicas and in a "no-fault" situation like that the chica is entitled to at least SOMETHING for her time, IF they've spent significant time with him that could have otherwise been used securing business with another PAYING client. Of course this was not a legally enforceable contract, but the other key elements were there that make it "ethically" binding - offer, acceptance and consideration in the form of the time she spent with the guy.
OTOH, MAYBE there was something else going on there which this chica left out of her story. Did he just up and desert her for no reason at all other than simply losing interest? Perhaps. Or was there some sort of argument between them? Did she say something that changed the terms of the "contract" on her part (like no BBBJ or having to leave before dawn)? Did he catch her stealing from him? Or did she reveal that she was actually under legal age? That would certainly explain not only why he ditched her but also why he tried to keep her out of the HDR (and why they complied). It is that part of her story in particular that otherwise doesn't add up.
I think most of us have probably been in a situation where we've spent time with a chica and we've had 2nd thoughts. Most of us would either go through with our agreement and hope our initial impression turns out correct or else cut the evening short but at least offer some sort of partial compensation to the chica that was fair for the amount of time they had spent with us (even if non-sexual, bar time has value to these chicas too, even if at a lower rate). Sadly, some guys are complete dickheads and won't pay ANYTHING unless they got their full TLN, even if they were the ones to pull out. However, I find it incredibly hard to imagine why even such dickheads would go a step beyond that and try and screw the chica over with the HDR mgmt UNLESS there was something ELSE going on.
Similarly, we don't know the whole story with the 2 chicas at the San Pedro Mall. Maybe it happened just as they said. But we haven't heard the gringo's side of the story. Maybe the chicas got there really late and he gave up waiting for them. How long are we supposed to wait? Or maybe they "crossed wires" and one side or the other got mixed up where or when they were supposed to meet. If they were supposed to meet EARLY evening then buses were still running, and it is hard to imagine why even dirt poor chicas would go out without even the 50 cents it would cost for a bus in case they needed one (assuming they had any common sense which many of them often don't)
HunterS wrote:
...Bilko is assuming its just the gringos fault which is odd, I would counter its just as likely if not more the girls fault, these girls can be flakey we all know this they are just as likely to no show as we are. ...
I'd disagree with the last part of this statement. Speaking in a "sweeping generalization", chicas are NOT "just as likely" to no show as we are. IMHE, they are actually MUCH MORE likely to no show or show up REALLY late.
--------
Orange and I were posting at the same time but, yeah what he just said. There were probably a lot of other things going on in these cases that the chicas conveniently neglected to include. The guy who ditched the chica probably wasn't the most honorable or proper in how he handled it but the rush to judgment against him by so many here based just on the word of this chica is not very fair either.