www.CostaRicaTicas.com

Hotel Freebird just in a nick of time.

A great alternative.

_________________
PacoLoco: "You pay for it one way or another."
Ace: "Rent everything, do not buy in Costa Rica"

Not really a huge difference. ... and the real discussion is about treatment of us and our guests . Nevertheless, what happened to the poster and many more of us will eventually happen to most of the "defenders". I'm glad to see some of the girls refusing to waste their time dealing with it . Most of the guys iplaying in the gulch are staying elsewhere by now anyway. Last month I only ran into 1 or 2 people all week that stayed there.

_________________
"With foxes, we must play the fox." ~ Thomas Fuller

I have never had a problem myself but some of the chicas have told me that for some of them it's almost not worth the hassel.

I'd have to ask the same thing. I could see why regularly bringing girls back that were turned down for looking too slutty might consciously or subconsciously shift your tastes away from that "easy access" look towards the "classic conservative Tica" look, but not the other way around. You had something that was working and then your tastes change, for whatever reason, towards something that flies in the face of the policy you knew about all along and then you act surprised and complain about the results. There is nothing that has really changed on THEIR side since they first started this policy (at this point fairly long ago). It was YOU that changed. I'd suggest that it now comes down to what it has come down to all along since this policy went into effect. If you like sluttier looking gals, as you apparently now do, then you'd be better advised to stay elsewhere. OTOH, if others still like the "classic conservative Tica" look and stick to just that, then the Prez could still the place for them.

This turn away question deserves some more comment. Olney claims "over 30 girls no turnaways". First of all, exactly what do you mean by "turn away"? Turned away by the Prez's front desk or turned away by the chica at the BM because, for whatever reason, she didn't want to go to the Prez? I'm guessing he meant the former and that his results are driven as much by his "sampling methods" than by anything else. If one's tastes run towards the less slutty anyway, then it would really be no great surprise one would have little problem. But those results could be entirely different depending on how regularly you prefer a different type of gal.

And what about turn aways by chicas? If you naturally approach less slutty girls, then most of those gals probably haven't had any problem going back there and wouldn't have any problem going back there with you. OTOH, if your prescreening allows for the occasional nasty girl, then it wouldn't be any big surprise that you'd occasionally encounter some who have been blacklisted, burned, or simply don't want to go there. You then have a few choices.

One choice that has often been suggested by Prez loyalists is to simply move on to the next girl. The possible problem with that solution is that if it happens to you then you're essentially allowing the Prez to shape your selection process as I described in my 1st paragraph.

You could also, when you do encounter such girls, just take them to the Hotel Asia or some other such place. It goes against some guys' grain to pay for some shitty hotel room when they already have a perfectly nice one. But then they don't seem to have as much of a problem paying just as much of a tariff in the form of chica fees when they stay at any one of the 3 hotels mentioned by the original poster. Okay, the quality of the room you end up using for that 1 hour will be radically different from those at the Hotel Asia, but looking at it another way if what you're going for is the sleazy chica experience then banging your puta in the Hotel Asia is arguably much more appropriate.

And the 3rd choice, when you get the chica turnaway, is to do as this poster is doing and just start staying somewhere else where how their chica looks is never a problem.

My point is that this entirely HIS choice. It would be entirely as presumptuous for US to question his personal choice which works for HIM as it would be for HIM to presume that the solution that works for him would be the best answer for everyone ELSE regardless of THEIR personal situation and proclivities.

It always amazes me whenever issues such as these come up how some people can take such extreme views and then presume that their view should have to be shared by everyone else. BTW, lookingtoswing has an appropriate handle in this case because he has now swung from one extreme to the other (well not really, because he hasn't completely ruled out staying at the Prez again). I understand both sides of the argument to a point, but then see some cases where the defenders or prosecutors overreach on their sides.

For example, do those guys, who argue that we should all boycott the Prez (regardless of whether we personally have had a problem with their policy) either to get them to drop that policy or, failing that, to punish them for continuing with it, really think that will make a difference or that the Prez will care? Maybe in the beginning we might have believed that. While I always understood the Prez's rationale for implementing this policy, I was initially one of those who thought such a draconian reaction would come back to bite them. I never advocated boycotts, but I did think we should have tried to engage them in loosening their policies to accomodate some of our concerns while still addressing theirs. For example, only applying the policy during the high season when more of their more easily offended ecotourist guests were around to object. In fact, it has been suggested that defacto something very much like that might be in effect. But overall its been what, almost 2 years, and not only is the policy still going strong but they don't seem to be so lacking in eco-tourist guests to make up for the mongers they lost that they're willing to let up.

While the Everyone Boycott the Prez movement (instead of those who can't live with the policy just moving on and letting everyone making up their own minds) is the futile extreme on the anti-side, some of Senordo's die-hard Prez supporter arguments on the other side seem equally silly to me. Case in point this thing about the badges: I'm sure there are some girls who are turning away gringos staying at the Prez because those were blacklisted (AND deserved to be) and as we all agree it is just as well we don't go with those girls IF they did something where they deserved to be blacklisted. However Senordos seems to be suggesting in his arguments that most of the chicas who turn away Prez mongers fall into that category. I suspect that while some do refuse for that reason, there are many more who either don't like the hassle of even stepping out of their gringo hunt for the 10minutes it takes to make the r/t walk and deal with the Prez front desk or of being held up in direct judgement by some supercilious tico, or have been blacklisted for what amounts to really no good reason. And clearly some (if not many) have fallen into this latter category if chicas can be blacklisted for something as trivial as forgetting to return a badge. For Senordos to continue to make excuses for that particular policy betrays how biased he must be to go to such an extreme in defending his hotel.

He is right that keys and badges are different. Keys are probably more expensive to replace and also present more of a security issue if they are not returned. What is a chica going to do with a visitor badge? Is she going to return later dressed as a slut and manage to walk through the lobby without being stopped merely because she's got that badge pinned to the small patch of blouse that is covering her nipples? And, even if she gets past lobby security, she can't get into any rooms without what? A key! IMHO, forgetting to return keys are much worse.

But lets talk about badges. I go to networking and CPE events where they hand out badges and sometimes ask you to turn them in at the end. And I've often forgotten to do that. I've never been penalized for it. If the damn badges are such an issue, then they should do as they do with keys at some places - ask for a refundable deposit. No hotel that I've ever heard of has ever blacklisted a guest for forgetting to return their keys, key deposit or not.

Yes it is fairly simple "Sign in get a visitor card. On the way out turn it in." And yes, if there is a problem with getting chicas to do that they should take steps to encourage them to follow the rules. The problem is not with that process, but with the extreme penalties. Were the chicas aware that they'd be blacklisted from ever returning there again if, OMG, they forgot to return the 50 cent badge on the way out? I think there are far fairer, simpler and effective ways of dealing with this costly epidemic of badge stealing than maintaining an ever expanding list of chica badge felons.

MY MORE SENSIBLE SOLUTION: I've proposed this before and I don't know why more hotels don't follow it. I don't think the chica sign in process should ever be seen as an undesirable hassle. I think it should be seen as an important protection. Signing a chica in should be seen as 1 extra level of protection (however limited or legally flimsy it might be) that you don't accidentally bring back an und***ge chica. It should also be seen as giving you at least some protection if the chica later rips you off. How many times have we forgotten the name of a chica we were with? I'm sure most times, even if we remembered their first name, we never knew their last (or even their real first name). Anyway, here's what I think they should do REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY HAND OUT VISITOR BADGES OR NOT, PART OF THE CHECK-IN PROCESS FOR ALL HOTELS SHOULD BE THAT THEY ACTUALLY HOLD THE CHICA'S CEDULA AND NOT JUST HAVE HER SIGN-IN AND THEN WHEN SHE RETURNS DOWNSTAIRS AT THE END OF THE SESSION (AND RETURNS ANY VISITOR BADGES) THE FRONT DESK SHOULD CALL UP TO YOUR ROOM IF YOU'RE NOT THERE WITH HER TO MAKE SURE YOU WEREN'T ROOFIED OR OTHERWISE RIPPED OFF BEFORE THEY RETURN IT TO HER No need to ban an otherwise rule-abiding chica for life, or to expand their blacklist to contain the names of the entire population of San Jose. Simpler to live with for the chica than to face the prospect of lifetime banishment. I guarantee it would be 100% effective at getting them to return the badges, even if it meant having to return upstairs to get it or return the next day when they remember they forgot to get back their ID. And it would also add an extra layer of protection for their monger guests.

IMHO,a lot of you guys STILL don't get it. The Presidente doesn't want mongers in their hotel They want to replace "ALL OF YOU" with eco-tourists who they believe are far less trouble than you guys with your hookers. (When you think about it...which woould you prefer if YOU owned the place and could make just as much money) They started out with the attitude that they were "protecting" guys from "bad chicas". Now it is very clear that is NOT their intent. Is a chica that forgets to return her badge a "bad chica" ie. jail time? C'mon...wake up and realize that you are going to subject yourselves to this kind of abuse if you stay there.
The only thing I can't understand is why they continue to honor the CRT discount then enforce rediculous dress codes and bannings of chicas. Who do they think CRT represents?

Prolijo:

Thank you for the passion that you feel on the subject of the Pres. It is apparent in the eloquent way you present your words.

I will not stay at the Pres, not because of their policy, but because of not wanting to make the"walk of shame" through the hotel lobby (my own judgments , that I am not trying to make yours). I know how I would feel if in the US some rich (at least in my thoughts) man (place the nationality here), especially old (like me), was walking through the hotel to have sex with one of my nations young daughters. I doubt seriously if I would like it, and even more so if I was with my family. This is one of the reasons, amongst many, that I choose to stay at the SL. I don't blame the management, nor the staff, for not liking a situation that I myself would not care to see.

Prolijo Wrote:



A very good suggestion. I would take it a step farther. She doesn't get out, and her Cedula returned, until I re-appear with her. I know that for some it would be a pain in the ass to get dressed and walk her out, but it would relieve the burden from the guard, and insure that all is well. Besides, since our membership states something about "A gentleman's Guide to Costa Rica", it is the gentlemanly thing to do. Make sure you lady for the evening is safe, at least, in a cab and on her way to wherever.

Happy holidays.....

Steve - Santas Bro

_________________
It's not the size of the wand that put the rabbit in the hat, it's the magic in it!!!

DR. Vegas Bob is right

Guys, let us not forget that while many ticos tolerate prostitution, very few of them *like* it.

I think we get this idea that just because it's legally tolerated, and just because we're on vacation that what we're doing is somehow morally acceptable to most people. I assure you, it is not.

V.B. is absoluteley correct. It appears that whoremongers are not the Presidente's ideal class of guests. Eco-tourists don't stain the sheets, don't fall down drunk in the hallways, don't smoke dope in their rooms (usually), and don't flaunt scantily-dressed young tarts in front of gringo families and their ch*ldren.

But, since all this whoring stuff feels so normal to us, many of us react with righteous indignation. "How DARE they!? We bring them TONS of business! " Yeah, their policy sucks, but it is after all their property.


Well dudes, it's their house, their rules and their reasons. If you don't like it, swing to another hotel. We are not going to change Daniel's mind at the Presidente, nor should we try.

_________________
Pura Vulva! Wandering through the dark, I am El Ciego.

I skimmed this thread quickly so I might have missed a few points. This past summer I stayed at the Presidente on and off for 7 weeks.

On the 1st night a girl got turned away. As Prolijo pointed out with another poster, this subconsciously limited my selection thereafter. Ironically, I had intended to widen my selection (more non-P4P girls would find the Presidente acceptable) rather than limit my selection.

Also, the Presidente is not owned by only one person so I believe that the majority owner does not want mongerers. But the minority owner is not anti-mongerer. However, he does not control the security guards as they are not direct employees of the hotel.

This upcoming short trip from 1/24 to 1/29 I decided to stay at SL because my goals are much narrower to merely have as much fun as possible in under a week. I do not want a hotel to limit my selection nor do I wish to feel the "walk of shame" as another poster put it.

My two colones ...

Not sure what you mean about the security guards. Most any business that employs an outside firm to provide security also establishes the policies that they want that guard service to enforce. Did you mean that the dress code is not the one dictated by management but rather one that the guard service has decided upon? I can not believe that to be the case so I must have misread the meaning of what you posted.

Could you give a bit more info on what you meant? Were you implying that they were acting on the direction of the majority owner? If so then they are acting as directed and the fact that they are not directly employed by the hotel is irrelevant.

Just as an aside I have always been led to believe that the Presidente is family owned so there is no majority owner as such.

_________________
Pura Vida
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four
essential food groups:
alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat.
Alex Levine

The Presidente does not act as one voice. The majority owner (who I believe is a lady) implemented the policy. The minority owner (or one of the minority owners - don't know the precise ownership structure) would prefer one of the simple policies previously suggested to remedy the situation (e.g. like keeping jackets downstairs) but was rebuffed.

This minority owner also explained to me one night when we were out that he does not control security, only his hotel staff. So in the instance of the Presidente, the majority owner is establishing both the dress code policy and controls the security, whereas the minority owner runs the hotel and restaurant. Although the hotel staff still enforces dress code policy as well but can theoretically be more lenient.

But from a customer's perspective, you are correct that the ownership structure is not as relevant since the policy is still somewhat prohibitive (and hence why I am going to stay at SL).

I hope this explanation didn't add to the confusion.

Thanks, I appreciate the explanation as I now understand what you wrote and it makes sense.

_________________
Pura Vida
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four
essential food groups:
alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat.
Alex Levine

I just wanted to be honest about a renewed interest in staying at The Hotel Presidente, again. Yes, I was the author of this very same unfavorable review based experiences from my most recent stay. Since I am having second thoughts on my original position, I thought I would articulare my reasoning for others to hear. I have had a reservation at the Hotel Presidente, for Superbowl weekend, since last Oct. Based on my most recent stay (Dec), I vowed to make that hotel one of my last choices when in San Jose. Well I realized that I had to cancel that reservation before I was charged a one night penalty for cancellation. So I decided to include my reason for cancellation, in my email, and my unfavorable experience during my last stay. Well, the reservations dept forwarded my email on to the General Manager. To make a long story short, the GM and I have had several days worth of constructive email discussion. And I have to tell you......this hotel truly cares about their guests; their comfort, their satisfaction and their safety. I am so impressed with how much they cared about my satisfaction that I have to give them another shot. They have promised me nothing in return, so this is no shill! I have no illusions that what the GM and I discussed will have any effect on the Prez Dress code policy, but the way I was treated in return for my honest feedback, has been an awesome experience and has won them a customer back. I just feel that it is so rare, these days, for a business to care enough to use customer feedback to review policies, procedures and to train staff to treat people respectfully during uncomfortable situations, like denial of a guest.

I am sure some who despise the Prez will throw stones at this message, and me, but I had to be honest and fair to the Prez by highlighting this recent experience with them. I was offered that a room would be held for me if I would reconsider my cancellation with them., at the same rate that I was originally guaranteed at. I declined his offer as I already had a reservation at Amon Plaza, but indicated that I would reconsider The Prez if I am able to return in May. I extended an olive branch to the GM to meet so I could thank him personally for direct involvement and engagement in this matter. He has accepted my offer and we are going to meet over a drink in the News Cafe, when I am able to return.

I just thought thought that sharing my experience would be interesting to some on this board.

_________________
OK, I Admit It....I have an Asian Obsession. But I also have a Latina Obsession, too! Perhaps I just have a Pu**y Obsession? -----------------------------------------------------
Next Trip: SJO - April or May??????


Someone PLEASE STOP Me.................LOL

Daniel, the GM/Minority Owner is awesome. He does what he can while managing so many competing concerns whether these are eco-tourists versus mongers; other owners; or labor laws requiring him to essentially hire all Costa Ricans.

However, for this trip I will stay at SL because of my desire to more fully engage the mongering side than during my last trip. But my prior responses and this one, along with that of the previous poster, should cast light on some of the obstacles the GM faces (although this still doesn’t change the Presidente’s “dress code” policy).