CupidsEscorts Tweets a Client's Information

[bigshot]

Bravo to Cupids! Too many men asking for bbfs from service providers and trying to pull off or breaking the condom midway when they have clearly said no BBFS!!What part of No does this degenerate not understand??This industry is hard enough as it is. There is just too much of this shit going around nowadays. Guys trying to bareback SPs. These men deserve serious consequences for this type of behaviour.������

No, Jen, it's the law of un intended consequences. While the ladies have a right to expect certain standards from their clients, the clients also expect privacy. We do not have the right to expose someone who has been accused of something as it is possible that there is more to the story. The unintended consequence now is that clients will be unlikely to share their personal information when being screened. How will this help?

 

[LT56]

I disagree with Cupid’s decision to out the guy on social media.

If the sp wanted to she could file a police report; if she chooses not to that’s up to her. She certainly is under no obligation to do so. However, (assuming Cupid’s is acting with her consent) she apparently has no qualms about taking her concerns to social media and orchestrating her own form of public lynching.

If the concern was around protecting other escorts then placing the guy’s name on a Bad Client List would have served that purpose. This just seems vindictive on the part of Cupid’s and the SP. Moreover, this is apparently not the first time Cupid’s has done this- they sound like they have a chip on their shoulder against their clients and are locked, loaded, and eager to out their clients on social media.

I will avoid this agency. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[rhuarc29]

As much as I disagree with what Jillian did here, I'm not one to boycott establishments because one of their number, even the owner, did something monumentally stupid. If the outing is a result of stealthing, I have nothing to worry about because I would never commit such a crime.

Obviously this could all be made better by legalizing the industry. Then SPs could be encouraged to go to police immediately and follow the proper channels rather than pursue rage-filled vigilantism. In cases like this, I totally understand the anger instinct. The PSA Subforum on here is full of SP horror stories that make my blood boil. But justice is rarely achieved through anger. It takes focus and it takes principle. Supporting Jillian in this is a short-sighted perspective to have, especially considering the impact of outing on the industry. I mean, what if an SP did something she thought the client would like but he didn't, such as a PS? That also exposes him to STDs. Is it okay for him to now out the SP to her family? To her other line of work? I don't think so.

 

[apoptygma]

As much as I disagree with what Jillian did here, I'm not one to boycott establishments because one of their number, even the owner, did something monumentally stupid. If the outing is a result of stealthing, I have nothing to worry about because I would never commit such a crime.

But it's a slippery slope. Stealthing can very easily devolve into 'simply inquiring about a service that isn't offered', or 'cancelling an appointment last minute'.
Those surely are extreme examples... but if you start to justify any kind of outing, it is very easy for that bar to lower and lower.

 

[LT56]

But it's a slippery slope. Stealthing can very easily devolve into 'simply inquiring about a service that isn't offered', or 'cancelling an appointment last minute'.
Those surely are extreme examples... but if you start to justify any kind of outing, it is very easy for that bar to lower and lower.

Indeed. I’ve seen sp’s On Twitter threatening to out clients over missed appointments and other fairly minor transgressions.

 

[apoptygma]

Indeed. I’ve seen sp’s On Twitter threatening to out clients over missed appointments and other fairly minor transgressions.

Yup... John's need a "Crazy Ass SP" blacklist that can be referred to.

 

[doggystyle99]

I disagree with Cupid’s decision to out the guy on social media.

If the sp wanted to she could file a police report; if she chooses not to that’s up to her. She certainly is under no obligation to do so. However, (assuming Cupid’s is acting with her consent) she apparently has no qualms about taking her concerns to social media and orchestrating her own form of public lynching.

If the concern was around protecting other escorts then placing the guy’s name on a Bad Client Lust would have served that purpose. This just seems vindictive on the part of Cupid’s and the SP. Moreover, this is apparently not the first time Cupid’s has done this- they sound like they have a chip on their shoulder against their clients and are locked, loaded, and eager to out their clients on social media.

I will avoid this agency. Thanks for the heads up.

I am so with you on this point. This is not the first time Cupid has outed a client they have done so in the past, they have also outed one of their own SP's to her SO. For that alone I will never use this agency again.
They've gotten away with it in the past and continued to do the same, it's a horrible way to deal with issues. They should not get away with it this time.
Now onto this asshole that stealthed the SP, if he is a client that has done this in the past as some of the comments (I don't know what facts they are based on) this should be more reason to have this asshole reported to the police. Otherwise he'll continue to do it to other SP's.
Again outing someone like this achieves nothing in solving the issue and further more how many hobbysits, SP's or agencies are ok with hobbyists following in the same footsteps of Cupids and outing SP's for providing unwanted or unsafe services to clients, B & S ads, or scams?
It's a very slippery slope to go down on.

 

[The Mechanic]

I have to agree herethat it’s wrong someone’s personal information out on the Internet via Twitteror whatever. If it had gone to court than it would be public record and yesthen out the individual, people forget there are three sides to every story His,Hers, and the Truth. It the act was intentional there should be charges ofassault, if it was an accident so be it, it was an overreaction of the providerthat to might come into play. For example, Google Tawana Brawley when the newsabout her rape and it came to public attention there were lynch mobs out thereand then later it was found out the whole story to be fabricated either by her orReverend Al Sharpton.. As for providers asking for references, work number,occupation and how much money make a year’s, maybe we should be asking theprovider real name etc. etc. And a quick question would it be right to "out" a provider if she gave you a std?

 

[squeezer]

If he was a known problem client as some have claimed why would cupids allow the booking in the first place or at the very least warn the provider and allow the young lady to decide if she wanted to go through with the appointment?

 

[newguy20]

So, some asshole is stupid enough to give his personal information to an agency and then rape the girl providing the service.
He's Darwin award material on several levels.
He gets what he deserves.
Fuck him.

Personally, I am neither stupid enough to give out personal info or asshole enough to disrespect any woman in that way.
My understanding is that Cupid's is an outcall agency, so I would never use them. Not because they posted fuckhead's personal info, but because I am not willing to give mine to any provider or agency.

 

[LT56]

If he was a known problem client as some have claimed why would cupids allow the booking in the first place or at the very least warn the provider and all the young lady to decide if she wanted to go through with the appointment?

Because they are not interested in protecting the SP...their agenda is to impose retribution and punishment on Clients. Two different things.

Jillian sounds like the Bernard Goetz (aka The Subway Vigilante) of the Escort world.

 

[ELEMENTUM]

i think it is highly ironic for any type of agency like this that illegally sells the sexual services of others to be lecturing another agency that illegally sells the sexual services of others on what the law is or is not. all escort agencies are breaking the material benefits and advertising sections of the criminal law, that much is clear (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/c36fs_fi/c36fs_fi_eng.pdf). and don't give me that bs about "the agency doesn't know sex is going on". all any investigating officer needs to do is pull up all the reviews of their escorts off this site and the comments by the escort agencies to show that there is clear knowledge that sex is the service being sold. the cupids FAQ denying it won't mean shit.

i also think it's weird that she is getting a full legal opinion complete with citations from her lawyer from this. is she paying him just for the benefit to prove cupids wrong? or does her lawyer really have nothing else better to do while he's packing for a work trip to be offering his input on the latest escort drama?

Elementum Spa will be a private members club. I stand on firm legal ground. On addition, we are restricting our services to erotic massage. My lawyer is on retainer and I asked him to provide some clarity to me with regard to privacy of information because I understand how vital it is. I am opposed to outing as it can lead to retribution, the outing of SWs, and avoidance of legal and alternative solutions. I don't compete with Cupids as you know. But I will stand up for the industry.

 

[eternalbachelor]

How often have you booked with them?

I used to book with them a lot and recommended them to everyone due to the quality of the girls. Now I will recommend everyone to stay away. To me this outing looks like a coke induced tantrum and who knows what her next coke induced decision will be.

 

[squeezer]

Elementum Spa will be a private members club. I stand on firm legal ground. On addition, we are restricting our services to erotic massage. My lawyer is on retainer and I asked him to provide some clarity to me with regard to privacy of information because I understand how vital it is. I am opposed to outing as it can lead to retribution, the outing of SWs, and avoidance of legal and alternative solutions. I don't compete with Cupids as you know. But I will stand up for the industry.

Is the spa going to be located in Toronto? I will definitely be a customer if this is the case.

 

[essguy_]

Is the spa going to be located in Toronto? I will definitely be a customer if this is the case.

I believe Ottawa and run by none other than Adele (formerly of Muse). So at the very least, it will be a very classy and sensual experience with complete and absolute discretion. When it opens, I for one will find an excuse to go to Ottawa.

 

[frankcastle]

I look at it this way.... it means that at least one SP at cupids has limits on what she will do to avoid disease..... AND it means that the management stands behind their girls.

I completely appreciate both of those types of attitudes in a company that I would support. Yes I have used them in the past but that was a long time ago as I am 90% MP these days.

Honestly, if you conduct yourself properly you have nothing to worry about.

Boycotting the agency just means you are supporting a guy who likes stealthing.

I find it hilarious that these types of events brings out the haters.

 

[essguy_]

I look at it this way.... it means that at least one SP at cupids has limits on what she will do to avoid disease..... AND it means that the management stands behind their girls.

I completely appreciate both of those types of attitudes in a company that I would support. Yes I have used them in the past but that was a long time ago as I am 90% MP these days.

Honestly, if you conduct yourself properly you have nothing to worry about.

Boycotting the agency just means you are supporting a guy who likes stealthing.

I find it hilarious that these types of events brings out the haters.

Alternatively you could argue that this agency let the guy get away with stealthing. Nothing they have done is of any real, long-term consequence to this guy (especially given they have deleted the controversial tweet). In reality - this guy will simply move on to another agency and another victim. So nothing has been accomplished, except a lowering of the bar with regard to client privacy which will effect GOOD clients as well as psycho's. It would have been far better for Cupids to use back channels to discreetly warn others in the industry about this guy. By doing it publicly without involving LE, all they've done is drive the guy underground to prey on another victim. I don't applaud these actions on any level.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Boycotting the agency just means you are supporting a guy who likes stealthing

Wrong!!

Boycotting this agency means I like my privacy, and dont want my details aired on twitter without some due process.

The fact you automatically believe the accusations to be true tells me you're not very intelligent

 

[rhuarc29]

Honestly, if you conduct yourself properly you have nothing to worry about.

Boycotting the agency just means you are supporting a guy who likes stealthing.

Both those statements are logic fails.

Starting with the first one, while I agree there is little to worry about, there is definitely some concern now. Jillian has shown that she is willing to out someone if they do something she strongly believes is wrong. While we may also agree that what he did was very wrong (I would hope so), what we consider very wrong won't always equate with what Jillian thinks is very wrong.

As for the second statement, can you imagine if we thought this way about something else? You voted for Trump, you must support banning Muslims from the country. You support abortion rights, you must support baby murder. You support X, you must support Y. The point of these examples is that they are not correlated. Plenty of people voted for Trump, but don't support his travel ban. Plenty of people believe in choice, but obviously don't support murdering babies. Boycotting Cupid's has nothing to do with what the guy did...there's no correlation. Boycotting Cupid's is a direct response to Jillian airing a client's info. Not that I'm boycotting them anyway. But certainly my respect for Jillian has gone down the toilet.

 

[LT56]

Boycotting the agency just means you are supporting a guy who likes stealthing.

FWIW...I don’t necessarily see myself as “boycotting” Cupid’s as that would mean that I was engaging in some sort of protest in an effort to change Jillian’s behaviour or teach her a lesson.

I do not expect Jillian to change...and even if she apologized and promised never to do this again I wouldn’t believe her anyway. She just sounds like a loose cannon to me. I will never book with Cupid’s. Ever. Period.

I also reject the notion that this somehow supports a guy who is stealthing. Nobody supports this asshole’s behaviour; the question here is around how it should appropriately be responded to. Lots of options exist; outing him on social media is not the appropriate way to handle it.