Brooke L - an anti-review

[its me]

Finally got to see Brooke last night. Hmm. How to review her?

All my usual tricks of writing a review seem to fall over in a heap then catch fire and sink into the swamp. I could mention how I now agree fully that she deserves her spot in the five most popular Brisbane WLs. But that's too banal.

See, most reviews fall into the same act-by-act narrative structure. This is largely but not exclusively because most sessions have a similar linear progression. So review mpter review goes: initial greeting and first impressions, massage or some other form of initial foreplay, oral, sex, then maybe some comments to sum up, ending with a yay or nay recommendation to other mp.nets.

BUT... what if the session you had bore very little resemblance to that 'commonsense' Reviewamework, and that was one of the major things you loved about it? What if first impressions were formed months ago through reading each other's posts, an occurence that is becoming more and more common? What if rather than that linear act A causing act B structure, each separate event had its own temporality, and its own 'progression', maybe returning at interesting and unexpected moments, running into the other events?

Maybe the WL session model is the wrong one to use. In many ways the session was more like a date - the ultimate GFE - with wonderful conversation and getting to know you stuff and a genuine meeting of minds and intellects. But that doesn't fit either, as most dates have a DIFFERENT linear progression - awkward chat, comfortable chat, intimate chat, getting it on, sex (if you're lucky), and a long lingering goodbye.

Yet the time I spent with Brooke was as if that structure had been revised post-tarantino into the Pulp Fiction version of middle-end-beginning, where the climax came in the middle (time-wise) and worked its way back to the beginning, when everything came together and make sense, illumintaing what had come before.

I could get clinical and just describe each act that we did, but that would make for boring writing - the adjectives 'wonderful', 'fantastic' and 'mindblowing' would become dull with overuse.

I could mention how Brooke made everything she wore - whether it be the infamous pin stripe suit or white terry towelling - look hot. Mmm, that might work.

I could try and compare her with other WLs of a similar standard - Nikki VIP, Isabella - but then that feeds into the whole stupid "Who's the best WL?" ethos that I hate, as if any particular WL will satisfy everyone (a utopia) versus a vision of different WLs fulfilling different needs in different people or indeed the same person - highlighting the wonderful diversity of ladies and services (a heterotopia - which isn't a sexual word, look it up).

I don't know how to write a review of Brooke, so instead I offer this, my dissection of my problems writing a review of Brooke - in short, an anti-review. All I will say is that when NoLogoBoy met PoMoGirl, it was marvellous, and damn it, I want to see her again!

In one word - smouldering :wink:

 

[goddesskieryn]

Nologo

Great to read the anti-review review or is that rview anti-review....
Either way great style (Brooke) and your post isn't too shabby either.

 

[edrazeba]

that was fantastic

I have yet to see Brooke but have always wanted to. Ill health followed now by re growth etc has always stood in the way. I too, mpter reading her posts, knew she had that certain quality as a person. Hard to define but still tangible.

A review like that is exactly what I would expect Reviewom a Brooke review, however your method here was really outstanding. It has made me realize I should stop pissing and moaning, worrying and Reviewetting and just bloody get on with it.

Thanks nologoboy.

AND...sorry that my reply is so poorly written in comparison.

 

[A Chap]

very good !

Well NoLogoBoy,

What can I say, but I know exactly what you mean by your cooments regarding Brooke in your anti-review. I think it hits the mark !

Thanks for sharing with us mate !

 

[Lovely Laura]

thanks logoboy... you got me thinking last night (referencing the smouldering comment) and i dug out baudrillards "simulacra and simulations" and realised in the absence of reality i live precisely in the simulacrum. if you havent read it you must!

(sorry no one else will get it)

Brooke the hyperreal L...x

(i should also reference Colin the Hun here!)

 

[agent4927]

Hyperreal WLs

Hi again Brooke, was going to write some stuff on this matter but I quickly realised that it would turn into another uni-assignment length essay. Suffice to say (until I have time to send you a lengthy email!) that factors such as websites like this have changed the nature of the sex industry in more interesting ways than just making it easier for mp.nets to see pics of ladies before booking...

As for the book - of course I know it! For those who don't, I believe it's the book Keanu Reeves hides his codes in at the start of 'The Matrix' - and it's a totally appropriate book to be referenced in the film.

I think the question of hyper-reality as it pertains to the industry is an interesting one - it pretty much sums up a helluva lot of stuff I've been pondering for some time. You in particular embody a lot of it but I think it is a concept that can be used profitably when thinking about a lot of questions.

For example, the fascination a lot of clients seem to have with proving that the WL they've just seen has lied to them. "She said she was studying XYZ course at uni, but she clearly isn't" and the ever-popular 'fudging the age' matter. My usual thoughts on these were, one, who the hell cares, it's fun to make stuff up about yourself so why feel offended; and two, the preoccupation with 'proving' that a woman 'lied' to you is somewhat misogynistic (bloody women, can't trust them...) and distasteful. mpter all, 90% of WLs don't use their real name (some might want to say 99% - but I'm using my own statistics Reviewom years of heavy duty chatting - it's in the low nineties perceneforum.xxxe wise).

BUT... since the choice of what stories we choose to tell does in fact tell us something about the mind of the person (the choice of work-name for example, or the studies that one wishes to do), is it a lie? A lie that tells the truth, as Picasso supposedly said of art? Or (the opinion I'm coming to) no less real than the name we're given when we're born by someone (our parents) who don't necessarily know our personalities, especially at a week old : ?

Hey guys - can you imagine what the FULL reply would have been like? ha!

(geez I hope OzOzOz reads this before it disappears off the Reviewont page).

Oh, and Brooke - it's NO- LogoBoy. Interesting slip of the fingers there 8)

Have a good one!

 

[jordan g]

Too Deep.

Thank you NLB for inviting me to this mental ménage-a-trios. (The following is not to be taken as anything but my midnight ramblings mpter searching the rear, darkened sections of that now eroded and largely unused organ that I jokingly refer to as my mind.)

To quote: ?Or (the opinion I'm coming to) no less real than the name we're given when we're born by someone (our parents) who don't necessarily know our personalities, especially at a week old? NLB

Much is made of the evolution of language (where a wooden thing with four legs was once a chair, can now be a stool, sofa, divan, etc) but what determines the initial labelling of the chair as ?chair?? By introducing the distinction between the signifier and the signified, Saussure highlighted the abstract nature of representing signs with language. So why is the ?chair? not a ?blurge? or a ?Shwoar?, or other equally arbitrary, abstract and random collection of sounds.

Then Barthes extends Saussure?s distinction with his ?unlimited semiosis? concept. This allows us to categorise an object as a member of a group without ever refering to that object nor in fact the group itself. This is how advertising (especially status ads), television and B105 work. As Jacques Lacan might say (though he might not too) it is through the metaphorical and implication that we really make sense of the world (both the reality as well as the simulacrum).

Likewise, a child can and is anything at birth. It is the meaning we give to the child that determines whether the signifier (the child?s name) is appropriate (perhaps this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy).

By extension the wl?s name/life details/age/description/etc is intriguing. As Lacan states (referring to Revieweud) what has to be recognised is not what is expressed, but what is repressed. Why choose EmmyLou, late 20s, law student, rather than Marilyn, 28, former model?

I believe that by focusing on the wl and the role she plays in the simulacrum is interesting enough. BUT for me the exciting philosophical dilemma is the role of the mp.net.

Brooke?s Baudrillard states ?It is rather a question of substituting signs of the real for the real itself? and this is exactly what I believe the mp.net does.

In seeking something not present in their lives (whatever that may be and it is different for each one) they visit a wl. The wl creates a fantasy and they both call it a reality. BUT the mp.net believes because a credibility network exists to allow communication (and in this instance the suspension of belief) to exist.

If it is found that the wl has lied this credibility network fails and the whole simulacrum collapses for the mp.net.

Hence the attention to the detail and subsequent scrutiny of the wl?s life.

Or not!

 

[kaiserthegreat]

and ...

... and what can be said about Brooke's Revieweudian slip with NoLogoBoy's name?

I'll think about that one too.