Encounter: Meeting The Mature Companion

[younghtxhob]

Date: 08/04/2018
Name: Mature Companion
User ID:: 1768
Phone: provided after screening
Email Address: matureladyfriend@gmail.com
URL / Website: http://www.maturecompanion.net
City: Beaumont
State: Texas
Address: Beaumont
Activities: bbbj, daty & dato, mish, k9, convo
Hair Length and Color: short & brunette
Age: ~40s
Smoking Status: Non-Smoker
Ethnic Background: White/Caucasian
Physical Description: beautiful smile, tall, busty, amazing ass, great legs, ddf, & takes care of herself stunningly well.
Recommendation: Yes

[txfun7]

Are you trying to tell us to go to that website and then go through some other site for verification???? Not in a million years

[MuffinMan]

A link to her ECCIE Showcase: https://eccie.net/providers.php?do=view&id=1768

Gentlemen...Please post a link as well as an ID if the provider is on here.

MM

[osirus09]

Originally Posted by txfun7

Are you trying to tell us to go to that website and then go through some other site for verification???? Not in a million years

some of these providers are delusional...including her. There is one provider that says to meet with her, you must give her 100 for a lunch meeting, no sex, provide a generous tip to the waiters, and then she decides if she will see you...now maybe she was speaking in code. If not, she is truly lost and the guys that jump through those hoops are overly thirsty. There are too many quality providers that have reasonable screening to go through the drama.

[MuffinMan]

Originally Posted by osirus09

some of these providers are delusional...including her. There is one provider that says to meet with her, you must give her 100 for a lunch meeting, no sex, provide a generous tip to the waiters, and then she decides if she will see you...now maybe she was speaking in code. If not, she is truly lost and the guys that jump through those hoops are overly thirsty. There are too many quality providers that have reasonable screening to go through the drama.

Orisons...while her business model is one that has seldom used, it has been used before. Several years ago there was an artist/provider in Dallas who had the same lunch or coffee date thing and I beleive she was quite successful.

Not saying you're wrong to point it out, but we all have our opinions and providers are entitled to manage their businesses with their own styles. We, as hobbiests, have our final say as to wether or not our styles match. After all, that's why they make chocolate and vanilla ... sometimes with a little Rocky Road thrown in.

I hope as providers an hobbiests each one of us finds their own niche.
MM

[osirus09]

I hear you but I disagree to an extent. Buying lunch and tipping the staff is reasonable. But you expect me to pay you 100 as well t show up. It's already a nice lunch. What if you dont want to sleep with me. I feel like I am a great person to hang with so why am I paying you to screen me as well as providing a nice meal and tip for staff?

Also when the board was down, some of these providers with all of the rigorous screening became more reasonable and were not even asking me for refs. It goes to show that many providers will take advantage if they feel they have an advantage.

To each his own though.

[osirus09]

I remember her...lechat starving artist or something...and no she had you buy art instead of giving her donation for service. That was very clever and safer for both parties

[osirus09]

To clarify my comment on Mature companion being unrealistic or unreasonable with screening. I would like to set the record straight.
I HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT HER OR MEET HER.
I WAS NOT INSINUATING THAT SHE TREATED ME UNREASONABLE. I WAS AGREEING WITH THE POSTER THAT SHE IS UNREASONABLE TO REQUEST ALL OF THE INFO REQUESTED. HOWEVER, THE MAIN POINT WAS ABOUT A DIFFERENT PROVIDER THAT REQUIRES WHAT I LISTED ABOVE.

The provider reviewed I this thread seems to feel that I was implying that I had any sort of negative interaction and I am here to clarify that we have never interacted, I simply agree with the poster that many providers have unreasonable requirements for screening.

Hopefully this clears up the meaning of my post