Ryan said:
How is that different than a scathingly negative review, many of which are allowed to proliferate regularly? (one reason many of us come here)
The difference is that a scathing review is completely subjective, both on the part of the writer and the reader.
There is nothing subjective about claiming that a person (client or escort) has a sexually transmitted disease and that you contracted said disease from them.
Some thoughts:
1) It's interesting that the typical assumption in such cases (the incident on the old John Wal-Mart board comes to mind) is that the escort can't be trusted and must be "outed" to protect clients, but few people (if any) argue that the client should also be outed for the protection of escorts or other partners that he might infect.
I mean, Ryan hasn't offered to provide his name, photo, or contact information to any BCL's so that escorts can know to avoid him. Of course, the obvious response would be,
"Well, I'm not going to sleep with anyone so I don't need to be identified". But, seriously, how do we know that? Why do we assume that Ryan will do the right thing, but that she needs to be shamed into doing so? Do we value the health of clients more than sex workers? Or do we just believe that the client's right to privacy trumps the escort's sexual safety?
2) The accusations are almost always leveled with a great deal of certainty, even if the surrounding circumstances seem to go against basic common sense. I find it fascinating that virtually every John who comes forward with a STD accusation knows with absolute certainty that
she gave it to me. These accusations are typically accompanied by a
she's the only woman I've slept with in the past six months - yeah right - which is later amended to
the only escort or
in the past six months on a Tuesday while wearing a beret, and so forth. Of course, the accusers rarely have anything beyond a passing knowledge of STD's - quiz them about incubation periods and they're lost. Discuss non-symptomatic primary outbreaks and things really start to get muddy. But, hey, their gut tells them that it was the escort that did it, and that's a hell of a lot easier than worrying if your wife is screwing the milkman, isn't it?
Clearly, the escort should be notified that she
may be a carrier or might have been infected by you. That's the responsible approach, not outing her and ruining her reputation based on what you
think happened.
3) At the end of the day, doesn't the Scarlet Letter approach just create a false sense of security? Herpes, HPV, etc. are pretty much endemic in our population now. It is likely that, if you have had numerous sexual partners (escorts or otherwise) that you have been exposed to a variety of STD's. There is an inherent risk associated with sexual activity and, at the end of the day, "outing" someone who you
think has a STD does little to actually reduce the risks of catching one. Given the obvious issues of proof (you don't have any), and the virtual Pandora's box of privacy issues (see #1 above), it's hard to justify allowing some anonymous guy on a review board level an accusation that could wreck a woman's business - or worse.
TERB's policy is a responsible one. Obviously, there are exceptions to any rule. The severity of the STD and the existence of actual evidence,
as opposed to mere accusations and speculation, should guide moderators in their decision.
