Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
[B]Simplicity is key
....
|
DRs, while that is one way to condick, errr, conduct the cumpetition, imho, those procedures/rules do NOT seem simple to me.
from my conversations long ago w/ Angie and Italiana about the cumpetitions in the past, i believe it went something like this.
- x number of women and y number of men were involved [a non-participating person(s) acted as screener and collector of fees].
- each man received treatment from some number of women and gave their subjective assessment of the treatment, but according to certain criteria (semi formal and prolly not strictly enforced).
- these events happened over a period of time (week or two), not in just a few hours in a meeting room someplace. if the women could not or did not schedule all their events, their assessments were not considered for the final determination.
- the organizer(s) also decided how the collected fees would be distributed and what portion might be used to defray expenses.
- all of this was published and "agreed" to by the participants.
thus, it was a subjective but somewhat objective assessment of the women's skills.
i dont think it was a contest of "who can make the guy cum the quickest w/ or w/out hands", which in itself
is an interesting but different contest.
personally, i think that skills, techniques, and pleasures should also be considered, not just "time to cum".
this sounds similar to what hoursefly2 suggested in the Arkansas thread.
if done w/ lots of preplanning, this can work.
it doesnt have to be riskier than beneficial.
Angie, is that close?
whomever organizes this round will have to cum up w/ their own procedures and "rules', which the participants can choose to abide by, flaunt, or totally disregard w/ whatever consequences the organizer has up their sleeve.
