What constitutes "permission"?

I heard that there was some discussion over a review I wrote and how my pictures were removed because the provider revoked permission to post the pictures.

So I pose the following. We all know how customers "pay for time only". That's widely accepted around here. If I walked into a session and flat out asked a girl "Do I have your permission to have sex with you?" , most providers would look at me funny and some would kick me out (other posting an alert on me).

I believe we act on the "implied permission". We all know that the "payment is for my time only" is just what we say for formalities of our illegal activities. When I walk in, lay my cash down, and take off my clothes, we both know what is going to happen. You're giving me implied permission to have sex with you, although you never said the words. Now I'm sure the dirty talkers may say "come fuck me, big boy"...but for the most part, the first visit with a stranger is not as bold.

Similarly, if I take out my camera and start taking pictures, the provider will say "I don't want my pictures taken!" if she doesn't want them taken. Now then, if I have my camera and start flashing away taking pictures and video, holding the camera up to your face while you're sucking my cock, you're giving me permission to take the pictures, especially if you're smiling for the camera and you never give hint to stop.

Just relax as I know where you're going..."but barebacklover, that's not permission to post them in a review!!!". I agree.

Most providers, especially the new ones, don't give express stated permission to write a review either.

So now we have conflicting issues. We must take down images where permission was not given or the subject of the photos said "I did not give that fucktard permission to post my pictures. So we take them down.

But what happens when a provider says "I did not give this person permission to write a review. Well if you advertise on Eccie you must allow reviews. But what of the backpage girl who does not advertise on Eccie. Does she have the right to have her review taken down...and what if she only picks the negative reviews that she all of a sudden "did not give permission" for? So do we allow reviews where permission was not given? We're giving certain providers a powerful tool here to pick and choose which reviews appear here and which don't.

If this is about pictures in reviews, then I think you should let the lady know what your intentions are with the photos even though it would probably be assumed just so you both clearly understand each other.

If a guy thinks that the girl may have a problem with the pictures down the road, it would probably be best to get a pm from her stating she is aware you are using the photos in a review. That way you are covered if you guys have a disagreement. Not saying that all guys should do this but it should be a safe-guard.

But as for previous reviews with pictures, they shouldn't be removed unless the provider has reported them... but i don't think that a girl should pull a review or pictures from a review because it was unflattering only if it was taken without her knowledge.

I personally feel you should ask before you even start taking out your phone or camera taking pictures. Anytime a photo of some kind is being involved in a session a client ask me for permission and we discuss how the photo is used.

Then I also agree with skylar about making sure there is some proof that you both agree about the photo and how it's used. Even if I agree with photos I don't do any sexual photos involving the client so I don't regret anything later. Only body photos with no face.

Good luck though

It's really very easy. If you do not have permission to post a ladies picture then don't. You can try to us any rationale you want to justify why it is ok to do it anyway, but it is still wrong. There is a huge differences between putting an accounting "review" of your time with an anonymous person with a made up name or handle, and putting a persons face on the Internet that is a recorded history. I mean, if it's cool to put their face on the Internet, why not put your smiling face up there as well. What, you don't want that?

BBL, I think you are using the same argument that Otter used in Animal House when he was addressing the security counsel at the hearing for the Delta House.

Otter: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did.
[winks at Dean Wormer]
Otter: But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]

Well alot of points and threads have been made regarding pictures in reviews and I agree with some and other I don't. this is my view and my opinion on the subject.

If I may I think chipper said it best

any Lady foolish enough to allow a hobbiest to take a picture of her should not ever be surprised when it shows up someplace.

after all this is the internet everything is bound to leak sooner or later, I've personally have asked ladies here if they are OK with such activities, and to my surprise I've gotten a yes to the ones I've asked ahead of time. though I've yet to try it.

I see the problems behind having pictures posted on any lady here, but after all they are being put in a controlled environment and not some random site where pictures are posted for everyone to see them. I think if a review is posted with pics it should be noted on the title so mods can double check with both parties before the review is accepted and viewable to every user here. if this is a problem that is getting out of hand.

What constitutes being a complete and total D-BAG as your entire eccie persona?

There is a huge difference between taking a private photo for private enjoyment and publishing that photo for others to see. Permission to take a photo is NOT automaticly permission to publish that photo in public for others to see.

I will state that even if a lady gives her permission to use her pictures, then subsequently ask that they be removed the MOD staff will remove them. After all a lady reserves the right to change her mind.

After all a lady reserves the right to change her mind. Originally Posted by surfindick

So does a gent.

Just as a practical matter, I, for one, wouldn't want to do anything that might piss off a hooker who knows my name and phone number and has access to a computer.

On the AMP forum, certain AMP's have a no review policy. Now a member could be a total and complete douchebag and post a review knowing about the policy, and it would be at the mods discretion to take it down.

But what you are getting at it is "implied consent," and that's a slippery slope. It seems you want to use implied consent as an excuse to post photos and videos where you don't have "expressed consent."

Just keep in mind that works both ways. Say some perv at Lido who happens to be an ECCIE member is in that private room with you and a provider and he starts taking pictures of you (and your face) with that provider. Then he comes back and posts them on ECCIE. Or maybe he's taking video instead and uploads it to a free porn file sharing site. How do you feel about having your identity compromised?

And again....a very good reason to avoid a serious bad apple.

Ugh.....

Implied permission relies on the common sense to determine whether or not somebody will welcome whatever it is you're about to do. If I were to cock my arm back and make a fist in front of somebody, and they just smiled and didn't do anything to defend themselves, that doesn't mean I have implied permission to punch them in the face.

This is a fruitless argument, however, because I suspect deep down, BBL is, at heart, a troll. He enjoys the controversy he stirs up with his posts, enjoys getting into semantic arguments with those that subscribe to the prevailing logic, and gets off on all of the outrage his shit brings with it.

To be honest, I kinda get it, I just don't like that he basically trashes a real person in order to achieve it.

Implied permission relies on the common sense to determine whether or not somebody will welcome whatever it is you're about to do. If I were to cock my arm back and make a fist in front of somebody, and they just smiled and didn't do anything to defend themselves, that doesn't mean I have implied permission to punch them in the face.

This is a fruitless argument, however, because I suspect deep down, BBL is, at heart, a troll. He enjoys the controversy he stirs up with his posts, enjoys getting into semantic arguments with those that subscribe to the prevailing logic, and gets off on all of the outrage his shit brings with it.

To be honest, I kinda get it, I just don't like that he basically trashes a real person in order to achieve it. Originally Posted by TheBizz

Very well said, sir!