DWnyc

The point is it’s not multiple escorts, it’s by one person pretending to be several - and someone who is obsessed / a little psychotic. Which is why the app removes the comments immediately - doesn’t take a genius to spot such behavior.

Every so often I’ve suddenly seen 2-3 comments about me on Mr Number within a span of a few days with the same writing style and the same grammatical errors so likely the same person. I’m pretty sure I know which providers have complained about me and I’ve had no difficulty taking it all down from Mr Number - once they see the likelihood it’s the same person it’s very easy to make the case it’s false and harassment. Funnily, clients can also write up providers on Mr Number. I wonder how many providers have taken the time to check out their own telephone number profiles while writing up complaints about others? Some make interesting reading.

Just to point out … it’s not hard to get a second “proper” (ie non-burner) cellphone number with one of the big networks that also maintains anonymity (eg 30 prepaid with T Mobile or AT&T). Anyone looking to scam will likely be aware of all of this.So where is the “protection” for those who insist on only non-burner interaction? Most using burners are just trying to keep a low profile while pursuing a hobby that is at best socially frowned upon and at worst can get them into legal trouble. I guarantee to those providers who think they’re one step ahead of technology and client psychology that many of the numbers they think are “real” are in fact not the ones clients use in their real lives. Providers - particularly those in the US given the legal situation - are not exactly in a position to broadcast their full details without risk either - and many likely use (or should use) burners or these 2nd SIM services to avoid being traceable on matters related to the hobby.

The potential client said in his text it probably wouldn’t work for him, and bye … where is the lack of civility there? What’s the problem?

The law usually also points to deliberate misrepresentation of status following a known diagnosis. That is a separate issue from transmit-ability with or without U+ status. Again we come back to the same issue: clients need to do what they feel is best for themselves and not rely on statments on a website or spoken by a provider- but they should make best efforts to educate themselves on risk and prevention in their situation.

Ok - I’ll frame another example in the context of RM ada. I know at least 2 providers in my geography who say specifically they are Negative (one just says “negative”, the other says “negative on prep”) and I know they are positive as they have told me. One of them used to say negative at the time they told me they were positive … then I noticed they changed it to positive a few weeks later … but now it’s back to actually saying negative. And from others including people on this forum through private conversations I know there are others with similar observations about different providers. the morality of this is a separate topic. Let’s acknowledge it happens. Clients can decide how to behave in such a world individually.

Providers have offered other services often based on something that has come up in conversation (one had a particular talent for breaking safe locks, apparently, I won’t say any more). the hourly rate is typically higher than comparable task sites though

Carry condoms with you (as you should to a hookup/dating situation too) if you want to use them. Don't count on the provider having them or being proactive in finding them (“I may have one somewhere … not too sure … I would have to look … do we really need one …?”) And if the provider has any that haven’t been touched for years they may not be in the best condition.

Was talking to someone I’ve know who works at one of the prominent bars in New York He was saying that one welcome change in his job over the past few years that he no longer has to clear used condoms from the floor after closing time which was the part of his job he hated

Absolutely - and I would have no problem with that. not to mention if you wanted to keep a low profile with law enforcement or protect your privacy / safety why put out info such as your number that can be used to extract your name … that you don’t even have to have a conversation to obtain (like dollar amounts or addresses)

The category of hookup ads where providers seek something very different from their RM profiles intrigues me though - and I wonder if those are sometimes about seeking personal gratification than ads which are just bait and switch and trying to hook in business. Just the other day I saw a provider in my area (never met him but have seen his ads and some of his posts on here) - his provider persona is total top, dom etc - yet the ad was for “use me, breed me” etc. No judgement in any way on anything but those are two extremes - and I’ve seen similar or less divergent hookup profiles before. One provider did share with me he goes online on hookup sites to do market research - Ie if he’s going to be a provider in a sub role he’ll be a dom in hookups for a while to see what the market seems to want etc - doesn’t always end up meeting them but the conversations help him understand

Maybe it varies by geography - or type - but I would say 80%+ or the providers I have interacted with (not necessarily met) would go bare by default, and a significant number would refuse condoms if requested. I’ve even faced conversations on this assuming there were none to be had because an add says “either safe or bb” or “safe only” but then it turns out the provider will only play raw.

I’ve come across several providers who won’t deal with burner numbers. I don’t care - in that case they don’t get my business. There’s no provider out there I love got to absolutely meet.

Just an additional comment - this issue isn’t just about providers I can think of at least 5-6 people I know in my geography who declare they are negative on prep in their online dating ads - but I know (because they have told me) they are positive. whatever reasoning they may have and however naive it may be for someone to rely just on that statement we need to wisen up and manage our own care. having experienced (as I’m sure many have) providers and Hookups trying unsuccessfully to get me to change my mind about how I wanted to play “in the heat of the moment” - I’ll add that split-second wavering is less likely if you have a firm belief based on knowledge and your situation internalized.

And of course there’s the reverse - turn down a provider on one of the apps. The few times this has happened w me - i.e. I knew they were a provider, had never met them, don’t know how the conv would have gone but didn’t let it proceed to the bait and switch … they weren’t happy. ”I never get turned down … have you seen me?” The unspoken response … but in some cases it can hit at their core self definition. it’s almost like they believe people will pay to sleep with them … oh wait

Gamble is a loaded word. I would say if one is an entrepreneur and running their own business they are taking risks and hopefully backed by smart decisions that incorporate patterns, intel, common sense, advice etc. The rewards can be greater than the government job or junior role that goes nowhere but gives a steady salary (but not always). But the losses of course can be worse if the risks don’t pay off. Sometimes that is because of circumstances beyond the entrepreneurs control. But not always.

You can actually now get burner “permanent” numbers that are recognized by apps like Grindr - either as a premium from eg Burner or as a pay as you go e/sim from eg T mobile where you can register and assuming you don’t need the number any more, cancel after a week or so

Texting some info they would have had to look up as a follow up with no message implying they were seeking a rebooking … based on some conversation that took place, usually very vanilla … a local restaurant name, a hotel they liked when visiting somewhere you discussed, a brand of something talked about etc … that’s when you know you’re dealing with a real human being at the other end of the “transaction”

Or just move on the next guy or no guy if it doesn’t work for you - both providers and clients (3 line solution vs … )

He’s the same on grindr and sniffies if you come within a ~1000 ft radius of him. Have lost track of how many times he’s reached out to me unprompted. Have blocked him more than once but he resurfaces pretty quickly.

A reminder of free market economics. nothing stopping you from going on strike if you feel so strongly, and maybe invite other providers to join you. Look forward to your reporting back how that’s going for you.

I don’t assume anything about a provider. And so many providers have info that is incorrect, outdated, not relevant apparently because they are traveling but haven’t updated their info etc, Sometimes they keep things vague or undisclosed to lure in enquiries, much as we hear apparently it is so annoying to ask basic questions as might be expected in a customer facing business. And I’ve lost track of how many times a provider has said something like “it’s in my profile” when it isn’t or worse “can’t you read?” When there is nothing there on that subject. It brings out the contempt for clients and unwarranted self importance one segment of providers might harbor. if it’s not clear whether a provider hosts, i ask, and if their situation doesn’t work, I move on. If mine doesn’t for them, they can too. And if such an unoccupied question along with others like it brings out an attitude - another reason to just move on. can’t see why this is such a huge issue for anyone.

Never had a situation where the lines got blurred and ended well. I for one find it hard to pay once we’ve had interaction that is unpaid. I’ve never sought unpaid time with providers - it’s always been them extending or seeking me out proactively - and if they’re really doing their job well it’s easy to believe they’re doing so out of genuine interest. I don’t make the mistake any more (happened frequently in my early days)- I assume zero interest in unpaid time together from anyone in the business if the context of our first meeting is a paid session - but it happens from the provider side to this day. my cynicism tells me it’s not really them confusing pay vs play as much as an unprofessional way to drag out bookings.

Consent and being able to communicate boundaries - even for scenarios where one thinks not required - is important. Make sure that at least isn’t lost in translation.

Get used to more and more of that as time goes on … I recently had a provider ask if I was ok with filming. First time I’ve been asked in that context (have been asked in hookups a few times before).