DWnyc

I would love to see something like “We all have our preferences and I have mine. Please send your pic or provide honest stats so we can determine if we will play well together”. Whether or not this is acceptable, professional etc is a broader but separate discussion - it would just avoid wasting time, and also perhaps illuminate the reality of all this to those who don’t believe it happens.

A while back there was a provider (who constantly deletes his profile and renames himself) who started posting to defend himself after a 411 thread on him threw up common negative experiences, and offered free sessions to make up to those complaining about him. The provider got a lot if compliments on here for seeing the error of his ways, for trying to make it right etc. (and perhaps a few more paid bookings). I knew one of the aggrieved clients who was offered this make up session, who told me that when he sent the provider a private thank you by text for the apology and asked about scheduling the offered session there was no response. He followed up with and was blocked on cellphone and RM. That’s the only part of the story I didn’t find surprising.

You’re being exceptionally gracious unless there’s more to their “sincere apology” which is a step forward but not enough (certainly for me) to take them out of the naughty corner. If they haven’t demonstrated in their apology any genuine commitment to amend their ways or acknowledgement that they lack professionalism - what’s the point?

Who said they can be enforced? The best one can hope for is that platforms like this site generate awareness and can force providers who err to amend their ways. Elsewhere in the forum right now is a discussion - if genuine this suggests a provider saw the implication of his behavior on his potential business and tried to do something about it. Smart providers even if cynically would do the same.

Well the obvious - no misrepresentation of profile or services offered, punctuality, pleasant customer service with no unnecessary attitude, integrity on fees etc And given the specifics of the “profession” - being open minded, understanding why clients may seek to engage, no unnecessary entitlement / shaming and so forth These don’t really need articulation - but it’s easy to say “I’m the best” or “I’m a true professional” - putting it in practice consistently is where the hard work comes.

With due respect, I’ve held back on my personal views and practices in this discussion to try and be more objective. I happen to be medically trained and spend most of my volunteer time working in my geography with people (of all declared orientation) dealing with addiction and health issues from meth and other substance abuse). I’m fully aware of the potential effects on the mind and body as well beyond that on their relationships, professional lives, economic well-being etc. However, I have not sensed much genuine compassion or concern let alone empathy on here when the subject is discussed. It is presented as a binary of a bad choice by sex obsessed deviants far removed from our daily lives where the adjudicators of good taste are somehow morally exempt from society’s verdicts. The nuance of different degrees of use are is ignored despite, I assume, most people’s exposure to other substances that are frequently abused ranging from “social use” to “addiction” eg alcohol and nicotine which are legal but have severe health consequences also (liver, heart, brain, oral health, diabetes, blood pressure, strokes, deaths from car accidents etc). We’ve seen comments here ranging from “i do cocaine, but surely not meth good God no .,, ” to “weed is ok but not ..” to “I didn’t even know what Pnp was, aren’t I so cute and innocent” (all while discussing escorts to donate to). And in the paradigm of how this such an obscure practice. And when concern on health is raised we don’t stop to think how this moralizing and stigmatizing makes it harder for people who genuinely want to control their use to seek help or speak to others about it. I’m not trying to normalize anything in terms of encouraging use or dismissing the consequences. But use is far more prevalent than certainly discussion on here would suggest and denying that is a big part of the problem. Before we even get into opioids etc wreaking havoc across our entire society. Most of us on here don’t know each other personally and likely never will. There is no need to gain points on our supposed superiority to others whether as providers or clients.

I chuckle at the irony of this discussion - which to me seems ultimately an attempt at moralizing, shaming, virtue signaling etc. We are on a forum that exists solely because of a common interest in a hobby that is legally problematic in most of our geographies and socially frowned upon almost everywhere. And that’s before we even get to that man on man stuff that’s also apparently involved.

Just for saying that this post will likely live forever 😝

I speak several non-English languages as some of you likely also do. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an ad from the New York City govt in their ethnic outreach (eg on the subway) without errors eg literal rather than conceptual translation, words cut off probably by graphics teams who didn’t follow where sentences and words begin and end etc. All through using Google translate and similar services. They will improve no doubt. But maybe not in time for our hot Latino friend’s business if grammar is selection criteria.

Part of the point is just put something (and why would a provider lie? Age, weight etc are surely also always correct …) While we shouldn’t encourage status stigma or entitlement, and thanks to science we now have tools to protect ourselves in any scenario, some people still don’t use them all and select based on this info. Leaving it empty doesn’t help move us along that knowledge gap / discomfort / slow take up of treatment options.

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.