DWnyc

Well it’s easy to say all this - any business whether a company or an individual can claim this or its equivalent. The proof is in successive repeated verifiable experiences measured against common standards.

Experienced that twice before refusing anyone any advance payments going forward

Maybe they can’t do the math on fractional extended hourly payments 😉 I’ve experienced a range of scenarios on this, because it’s rare (certainly among those I’ve engaged) for a punctual start (ie we start the real session as soon as we can vs chat / they run errands, text etc) or stop. And sometimes I get the impression that is partly deliberate to reduce the amount of “session” within the overall time agreed. My preference is to end on time - and I’ve sometimes put in a softer alarm (barely audible enough to kill the mood but loud enough for me to hear) 10 mins or so before the end so I can say something like “we’re approaching the end, we should wind down”. That prompts their having to respond (and they may well have another appointment so can’t extend any way) but at least you thrash it out. if we started late because of the provider - they couldn’t find something, they got a telephone call they had to take, they wanted to chat beforehand “to get to know you and feel comfortable” but beyond a reasonable time (45 Mins in an hours session once, not kidding, because I was apparently so much fun to talk to) — I ask as we begin for real, “how much time do we have …?” So we can agree before hand on expectations. Worst is if a provider indicates they don’t mind going over, they’re enjoying it and they want you to as well … but then at the end they get passive-aggressive or worse, vocal about wanting more $ without disclosure of terms prior to extending. Just remember you may be having the time of your life but the model is based on the provider’s time at his discretion. So don’t let your heart or any other organ keep you going if you’re not prepared to compensate accordingly.

I fully support every provider’s and every client’s right to their views on this subject and without getting into legal issues, also their right to live their lives as they choose (if not harming others). However as with condom use vs bareback I think there is a lot of naivety (not meant offensively) on part of some, and some unnecessary virtue signaling from others regarding what has become vastly normalized in “the real world”. Im absolutely not refering to the OP or anyone in this thread specifically / personally. however I would be very surprised if a far greater proportion of providers than many here believe weren’t regular PnP-ers (said without any judgement but also without condoning this either). So if it’s a binary decision where one choice is disgust and “I won’t go near anyone who indulges in that stuff” (even if not offered in an ad or privately in person) - the acceptable pool of providers may be smaller than many here believe. Those of us in finance, law, creative arts etc will likely know many high performing colleagues and friends who we also know to be regular users - some are high-performing and others are not. The provider space is likely no different - and there are structural reasons why prevalence could actually be much higher. My point here is really - don’t kid yourself that this is just a small minority of fringe providers (or for that matter clients) indulging. And hang out in any gay venue on a Friday or Saturday night, or scroll through the online hookup sites with your eyes wide open if you want to refresh your estimates of usage.

I was referring to multiple comments and speculating it’s the same provider. And at the Mr Number end they can see things like IP address, device ID, network configuration of internet connection when review was sent etc so have more info to assessif it’s one or several individuals. If it’s several instances of different providers playing the same game rather than just one it doesn’t invalidate my point. The reviews I’m talking about were all accepted as false / malevolent and taken down because there were others almost identical or from the same wifi network or phone etc - so, no, it doesn’t mean it shows providers spookily all converged on identifying me as a threat to humanity Most online spaces allowing reviews eg Amazon, Yelp, Expedia etc have policies to protect the subject from malicious intent - could be by a disgruntled customer, a competitor, whatever. That involves technical analyses of hardware as well as of writing style, content etc. RM has a process of taking down bad reviews determined to be fake or unfair, but like other sites won’t take something down just because the target is unhappy. Every so often one sees a provider disappear then reinvent himself likely because too many bad reviews he couldn’t censor (so likely proven to be genuine after website due diligence) started affecting his reputation. It’s not just clients on MrN who are under scrutiny, and if anything providers have more to lose and should perhaps take greater care to prevent behavior leading to negative reviews that stick because they are found to be more likely true than false.

I had one provider offer to pay for me to be premium for a month in order to leave a good review. And at least two others offered extra time or another session if I agreed to become a premium member and leave a positive review. Funnily the three I’m thinking about were well established (one had an online channel that he said earlier was doing so well he’d likely never have to work again after a few years etc) and you wouldn’t think they’d need to “buy” votes.

In case it was unclear I was referring to premium subscriptions being a means of looking serious to a provider - I wasn’t saying “I don’t think clients should try to appear serious to providers”. If your response means you think clients should be premium members to show skin in the game (like they need iPhones) I disagree. And you don’t know what you’re talking about, you know nothing about me and my “track record” with providers that I actually want to see (rather than those I would avoid like the plague …). It’s pretty high, I’ve never been unable to make an appointment with someone I actually wanted to after knowing everything relevant, and I have enough who proactively follow up suggesting repeats that tells me from a biz perspective at least (as let’s not kid ourselves) I’m tolerable.

I don’t buy the argument for needing to look serious to a provider. Unless it’s some superstar - and I avoid those regarded as such anyway - I take the approach that no provider is unique (unless after a meet I have context and experience with someone), and I consider myself to be respectful and aware of their concerns and and if they can’t show they’d appreciate my business from the minute we start interacting, they don’t deserve it - no matter how insignificant my session may be in the bigger picture of their huge success. I dont think the respect we should provide each other is influenced by my payment to an external service.

And clients exercising choice in a free market economy regarding available options, not to mention staying well clear of abrasive / unreasonable / commercially unviable / mentally unstable behavior are … ?

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.