By the same logic, all SPs who asked for personal information , just want to blackmail their clientsALL men, yourself included, who don’t want to screen, are just trying to rape or rob an SP. They should be avoided at all cost.
By the same logic, all SPs who asked for personal information , just want to blackmail their clientsALL men, yourself included, who don’t want to screen, are just trying to rape or rob an SP. They should be avoided at all cost.
Isn't that what you all have been saying all along??? Are you now seeing how dumb it is to lump everyone all together and therefore proving my point correct?By the same logic, all SPs who asked for personal information , just want to blackmail their clients
The point being made is that many of us are totally against giving out personal info to someone we are meeting for a service that is considered illegal for the buyer to participate in. I as of today would not give my personal info to any provider for the first meeting. I would not send pic, ID, social media accounts or real number except for a burner phone number. I will not even contact a provider who lists those items on her contact page and therefore my advice to fellow pooners is STOP and think before you act. Always be polite, never force a situation but always think with your big head before you give out info.Isn't that what you all have been saying all along??? Are you now seeing how dumb it is to lump everyone all together and therefore proving my point correct?
I don’t recall anybody soliciting your opinion either.It’s tantrum; you have a lot of unsolicited and bad advise. Thanks but no thanks.
I was not the one doing the generalisation . But even if 1 out of 100 indies are willing to release personal info online - it is already too high of a risk. This is why the suggestion is to never give personal info. I understand that SPs may have similar safety risk meeting new clients, so, they do want to screen. As a result, the only possible solution is for everybody to do what is best for them, i.e., (1) indi SPs always screen and (2) clients never see SPs who screen. Of cause, it means no business for indi SPs and all clients will go to agencies. But, on the other hand, agency survive without screening, so, there must be a solution for SPs to do the same. Or simply work for an agency.Isn't that what you all have been saying all along??? Are you now seeing how dumb it is to lump everyone all together and therefore proving my point correct?
Well...obviously there are guys who don’t mind going through the screening process. Every pot has a lid.I was not the one doing the generalisation . But even if 1 out of 100 indies are willing to release personal info online - it is already too high of a risk. This is why the suggestion is to never give personal info. I understand that SPs may have similar safety risk meeting new clients, so, they do want to screen. As a result, the only possible solution is for everybody to do what is best for them, i.e., (1) indi SPs always screen and (2) clients never see SPs who screen. Of cause, it means no business for indi SPs and all clients will go to agencies. But, on the other hand, agency survive without screening, so, there must be a solution for SPs to do the same. Or simply work for an agency.
You got that slightly wrong. He would be told that anal digits were NOT available and after already being told, he would go for the physical attempt at anal digits. He even admitted by the end of it that he was wrong. I was the SP who pointed it out in the thread and fought him on it. He was brought to my attention by two male members of this board.Even in this thread, there are sp’s who have said they would doxx a client under certain conditions. That’s the problem. Once you let that genie out of the bottle it is impossible to know where it will go. Who gets to decide what the criteria for doxxing are? Who decides if an incident meets the criteria?
A couple of sp’s in this thread believe guys should be doxxed for non-payment or no shows because they view it as rape and theft.
I remember there was a thread awhile ago about some guy in Ottawa who was going around visiting the local sp’s and his signature move was trying to stick a finger in their ass during an appointment. He wouldn’t ask; he would just move his hand closer and closer to the sp’s butt hole and if she did not resist he would insert his finger. If the sp told him to stop or pushed his hand away then he would stop and that was the end of it.
Well...OMFG...A number of escorts in that thread were screaming that this guy was a rapist and a predator because he did not get verbal consent from the sp before executing his finger in the ass move. Does this guy deserve to be doxxed because some hysterical sp’s have worked themselves up into a frenzy on terb or Twitter.
Once you give out your personal info you lose control over what happens to it.
Ignoring the obvious irony about your post... Not necessarily. Doxxing is a crime.All I have to say humans can do whatever they please and no one other than law enforcement has the right to tell them otherwise and if you have an issue with it then move right along.
Obviously, there must be many fools sorry I mean gents, so why the ladies get their panties in a knot is puzzling. Deposits and the intrusive screening is the big push among twitter indies which I just stamp with a smile and a pass as I click, next!Well...obviously there are guys who don’t mind going through the screening process. Every pot has a lid.
Who knows? Maybe one of these days every sp will demand personal info as part of her screening. If it does my hobbying days will be over; probably not a bad thing anyway. I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it.Obviously, there must be many fools sorry I mean gents, so why the ladies get their panties in a knot is puzzling. Deposits and the intrusive screening is the big push among twitter indies which I just stamp with a smile and a pass as I click, next!
I don’t recall the guy being told specifically that anal digits were NOT available. My recollection is that there was no discussion of it one way or the other and that the guy would just try his luck in the session and see if the SP would allow it. Regardless, it doesn’t really matter. The argument was that because the guy had not sought out and received clear, enthusiastic, unambiguous, verbal consent from the sp meant that he was trying to rape her.You got that slightly wrong. He would be told that anal digits were NOT available and after already being told, he would go for the physical attempt at anal digits. He even admitted by the end of it that he was wrong. I was the SP who pointed it out in the thread and fought him on it. He was brought to my attention by two male members of this board.
And no he was not outted at all other then called out in that thread.
No means no. He was told no when he was told the do and don'ts allowed and he would go for it anyway. Big differences then just giving it a try once. He knew before hand and would do it anyway. But again he was not outted in anyway so I don't get why you are using that as an example.
She is re-posting those comments because she is endorsing them. She seems to believe that they somehow make her point.You're not a 'loser' (as far as I know :gossip and Sophia never said that you (clients) were, those were quotes from others on twitter that she noted as 'interesting'
I won't be surprised to see this here soon - My dog has 4 legs and a tail, therefore my dog is a cat
Don't worry Sophia hasn't changed, just as great as ever :applause:
I wonder whom the bigger risk taker is..She is re-posting those comments because she is endorsing them. She seems to believe that they somehow make her point.
Apparently, if us guys aspire to be Movers and Shakers in the world then we need to start fearlessly disclosing our personal info to sp’s.
So she merely found those remarks she quoted like: The riskYou're not a 'loser' (as far as I know :gossip and Sophia never said that you (clients) were, those were quotes from others on twitter that she noted as 'interesting'.........
Open a thread titled "The benefit of giving away yourDon't worry Sophia hasn't changed, just as great as ever
As I understand it: If they disclose their personal info to escorts then they are Movers and Shakers. If not, the are Losers?I wonder whom the bigger risk taker is..
the Movers and shakers who risks other peoples money in an attempt to pad his own pockets along with others..and when it goes south ...just moves on to the next deal or retires to his compound in the bahamas with his golden parachute...
or
the blue collar worker who climbs the high steel to build the Ivory Tower for these Movers and Shakers
the blue collar worker who risks his life everyday to make sure those same Movers and Shakers have the roads fixed
bridges built, powerlines working...where when things go south they wind up ..DEAD
oh lets not forget Firefighters and Police Officers...what category would they fall into??
It was proven he was told before hand and all the proof was based on his own words.I don’t recall the guy being told specifically that anal digits were NOT available. My recollection is that there was no discussion of it one way or the other and that the guy would just try his luck in the session and see if the SP would allow it. Regardless, it doesn’t really matter. The argument was that because the guy had not sought out and received clear, enthusiastic, unambiguous, verbal consent from the sp meant that he was trying to rape her.
The point is that on the scale of things that can go wrong in a session, this seemed like a fairly minor transgression that some hysterical sex workers were amping up into a rape allegation.
I realize in that instance the guy was not outed...however, if that guy is labelled a rapist then, by the standards cited in this thread, he deserves to be doxxed. I disagree with doxxing anyone and I think this example illustrates how an angry mob can get ginned up online.
Okay...fine. But do you think that guy shoulda been outed? As I understand it, many in this thread would say Yes because he is a “rapist.” What say you?It was proven he was told before hand and all the proof was based on his own words.
It does make a difference. Knowing before hand and going for it anyways was the exact problem. The issue was not that he had no sought out a clear no. It was that he was told no and went for it anyway. You may "recall" the thread but you don't have the full recollection. I know what the issue was because I was the one who brought forward the issue.
What you think happened, I get your opinion. But what actually happened is different then you remember and therefore was a true legitimate issue. And again, he was not outted so it makes no sense to be using it as an example.