i saw this post on another thread and i felt the need to respond.
i will forever stand behind the belief/knowledge that there were not any known hiv + girls on staff - instead there were some petty, jealous girls who created a rumour about two girls testing positive. one of the girls that was targeted was a young busty sweet blonde relatively new to the agency who was taking in so many calls that the other girls were increasingly jealous .... the other girl said to have hiv was the former roommate of one of the sp's at the agency... they had a falling out and suddenly this aids rumour was floated about ....
w.r.t. to the underage employees - one phone girl had previously been arrested for working under age at another agency. by the time she was at exotica/sweet dreams - she was of legal age. besides, she did the phones only. she was fired by the owner - and retaliated by calling the police and claimed that the owner knew she was underage when she was hired. had the police checked her 'story' they would have realized she was of legal age.
"The Aids Fairy" and "NHL Stars Slept with Aids Infected Hookers" - made for some sensational headlines in the toronto STUN ... i mean sun ... such headlines sold a lot of papers ... please be careful what you read ... and take it all with a grain of salt.
i have been a part of the terb community for a while. i believe that my posts reveal a sensitive woman who has nothing but the best interests for those involved in the biz. i am asking that my 'cyber personality' speak for itself ... and i ask you to take my word that i would never ever knowingly send any hiv + girl on calls ... and i was the full time phone girl at the time in question.
it may seem odd to revisit an issue that occurred years ago. however, i am a proponent of the belief that information is power ... moreover, i do not believe that one should repeat the mistakes made by others. and maybe if some facts were presented behind the rumours swirling, perhaps there is something to be gained ...
my big reason for posting this response is to just re-iterate the need to be careful! all it takes is one or two girls with a vendetta to bring a legitimate agency down. while it remains safe to assume that most legitimate agency owners have nothing to fear, it is not unfathomable. besides, i am sure that the exotica/sweet dreams owners believed they were free from prosecution.
agency owners, please be careful! let me give you an example - as an owner of an agency, you claim that you do not know that the girls will be having sex with the customers... yet, your driver regularly needs to stop at a 24 hour shoppers drug mart to get the sp's some 'supplies' .... are you wilfully blind to the realities?
or say one of your girls is stealing business so you let her go - she is upset. how much can you afford to have any disgruntled employee try to get back at you ...? what if she ALLEGES inappropriate behaviour to the police? how far does the presumption of innocence go ... ?
in other words ... be discreet.
syn
sweet dreams/exotica was busted because there were mere ALLEGATIONS that hiv +/underage girls were on staff - i was working at the agency and i am quite familiar with the evidence presented at the trial ...
i will forever stand behind the belief/knowledge that there were not any known hiv + girls on staff - instead there were some petty, jealous girls who created a rumour about two girls testing positive. one of the girls that was targeted was a young busty sweet blonde relatively new to the agency who was taking in so many calls that the other girls were increasingly jealous .... the other girl said to have hiv was the former roommate of one of the sp's at the agency... they had a falling out and suddenly this aids rumour was floated about ....
w.r.t. to the underage employees - one phone girl had previously been arrested for working under age at another agency. by the time she was at exotica/sweet dreams - she was of legal age. besides, she did the phones only. she was fired by the owner - and retaliated by calling the police and claimed that the owner knew she was underage when she was hired. had the police checked her 'story' they would have realized she was of legal age.
"The Aids Fairy" and "NHL Stars Slept with Aids Infected Hookers" - made for some sensational headlines in the toronto STUN ... i mean sun ... such headlines sold a lot of papers ... please be careful what you read ... and take it all with a grain of salt.
i have been a part of the terb community for a while. i believe that my posts reveal a sensitive woman who has nothing but the best interests for those involved in the biz. i am asking that my 'cyber personality' speak for itself ... and i ask you to take my word that i would never ever knowingly send any hiv + girl on calls ... and i was the full time phone girl at the time in question.
it may seem odd to revisit an issue that occurred years ago. however, i am a proponent of the belief that information is power ... moreover, i do not believe that one should repeat the mistakes made by others. and maybe if some facts were presented behind the rumours swirling, perhaps there is something to be gained ...
my big reason for posting this response is to just re-iterate the need to be careful! all it takes is one or two girls with a vendetta to bring a legitimate agency down. while it remains safe to assume that most legitimate agency owners have nothing to fear, it is not unfathomable. besides, i am sure that the exotica/sweet dreams owners believed they were free from prosecution.
agency owners, please be careful! let me give you an example - as an owner of an agency, you claim that you do not know that the girls will be having sex with the customers... yet, your driver regularly needs to stop at a 24 hour shoppers drug mart to get the sp's some 'supplies' .... are you wilfully blind to the realities?
or say one of your girls is stealing business so you let her go - she is upset. how much can you afford to have any disgruntled employee try to get back at you ...? what if she ALLEGES inappropriate behaviour to the police? how far does the presumption of innocence go ... ?
in other words ... be discreet.
syn
Last edited:
