DMonDude

Very very curious about this guy as well and also find this a bit sus lol. I might eventually take the plunge for us if no one else does soon. But there's a couple other guys ahead of this guy in my RM queue 😆

Probably the most prominent reason providers have little to no reviews even though they have been advertising for a while is Rentmen changed their policies. Only paid members can leave a review. I think this policy change happened before 2019 but I may be mistaken. I truly believe most clients who use RM aren’t paying members. Once the policy change happened I noticed less reviews being posted. Well at least for the guys I’ve seen in person.
The other reasons could be just about anything. Maybe the provider doesn’t want reviews. I knew a few guys for whatever reason, just weren’t keen on reviews.
Maybe clients are fearful of privacy issues and are just overtly cautious about doing anything to connect them to the site or escorting. So they don’t write a review.
In some cases the provider can have RM delete a bad review.
As for your other questions, again, it could be just about anything. Maybe the ad is fake and using someone else’s pics. They get reported and the ad is taken down. Maybe the provider alters his ad name. The ad remains active but it seems like it disappears because of the name changed. Sometimes maybe the provider figures this line of work isn’t what he thought it would be. Maybe even the providers finds enough clients or sugar daddy and shuts the ad down. Who knows.

It's a hookup app like Grindr. But it technically is a website with no app (but it's meant to be accessed on your phone). And because of this they don't have to adhere to the same rules an app does. So you can have nudes in your profile photo for example. It's culture is a little different than Grindr too. Sniffies is more specific to cruising, anon hookups, finding group sex/cum dumps and stuff like that. So @harlow must have seen the guy on Sniffies nearby and shot his shot and missed lol.

A lot of people do both 🤯. And porn stars in particular often do one on camera because it's what is most marketable for them, while doing the other/both off camera because that's their personal life.

You don't get it. It means what he does on camera for porn is not his actual preferred position for RM. It's not a unified thing where he is obligated to do the same position in both jobs.

You are basically saying the sex equivalent of "well if he works at Subway, but makes Sushi at home. I'm confused about what his favorite food is". You see how ridiculous that sounds?

Grow up dude. It's exactly what you did, you're the silly one here who can't fathom that people can do more than one thing and who doesn't understand that a provider's Twitter is not a direct correlation to services they offer via RM. Get a grip.

Again, you literally are saying "he does one thing here, but a different thing here, my brain hurt and i no understand!". Clearly the thing he says he does on RM is the thing he does if you hire him through RM.... It's really not that difficult.

When you communicated with him, did he refuse to give you any useful information about what services he provides and would basically only communicate in one word answers and emojis? Cause i tried to book with him today and that's all i could get out of him. Was absolutely infuriating.

To add on to these comments. 
I definitely think there's a certain amount of mutually assured destruction behind why they don't truly crack down on this hobby/profession the way they could if they really wanted to in the U.S. In addition to the resource management, practicality, and crime priority level aspect of it. A not insignificant amount of cops, politicians, and high profile/high power people also are clients. Some of whom are fairly known in an "open secret" kind of way in some circles.
If they really tried to come down on this with indiscriminate full force, they wouldn't be able to protect the massive amount of themselves/each other who also engage in this and they'd be at high risk of exposing themselves and people having their secrets get out. And i think that is part of why they tend to mostly go after this in such a targeted manner mainly when it serves other purposes like the reasons Soloyo215 listed.
I think the powers that be would love to have the law be the same as how it is in the U.K., but because of how the U.S. has been culturally for so long it'll effectively be impossible to ever pass any true State or National level legalization for a long time.

Not sure i agree on the latter half. Depends on your definition of using AI agents anonymously. Every centralized one i know of requires you to sign up with an email and make an account. And any of the ones that are actually anonymous or private require you to do a proper manual setup on your computer. You have to know MCP and APIs and this and that. Most people do not know how to do this and don't want to know, that's the whole reason why people want AI in the first place is to not have to be bothered with technical stuff because the AI does it for you.
As far as privacy stuff goes, i wouldn't put those two things on the same level. Mobile carriers use ephemeral storage for messages. They only keep the content of texts for up to a couple months at most, but they maintain metadata like who you text and when but not the content of the messages. When law enforcement subpeona's them they are mainly handing over metadata unless it's within that couple weeks to months time frame. Now that Apple's iMessage is encrypted, and Android's RCS is encrypted, and messages between the two also are now encrypted. There's no message content leaking without a hacker or law enforcement getting direct access to your device. It's inherently harder to get into someones texts with how many different layers there are between the content and a bad actor. It's why usually when mobile carriers do have a data breach, it's almost always only your info you used to setup your account with them and not the content of your texts or recorded phone calls because they generally just don't have them anymore.
There's multiple accounts to bypass, SIM card activations, physical access needed usually, etc, etc. Meanwhile, ChatGPT is not encrypting anything you input into it and anything they have could leak tomorrow either due to some intern hitting the wrong button or by them being targeted by North Korean hackers or whatever else. Let alone law enforcement/subpoena where they're compelled to hand over preserved chat log content and not just metadata. It's already happened actually https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/11/oddest-chatgpt-leaks-yet-cringey-chat-logs-found-in-google-analytics-tool/ A misconfigured Share feature led to private chat logs of users to be leaked and scraped by Google Search and be publicly accessible. So yeah it's just, not the same level at all. Especially when all these AI companies are still in "move fast, break things, make money at all costs so we don't cause another Dot Com Crash, apologize and settle out of court later if needed" mode and more or less are completely unregulated still. The notion that the ship has sailed already isn't true and that sentiment is how they make us be ok with them encroaching on us more, but there are multiple ships in the dock and some of them haven't gone anywhere yet till we let them.

B of A has been dispensing $100s for several years.
I only use Zelle for a select long-time provider or two.

Agreed. I actually find height makes many positions difficult, or at the very least, need to be done differently to still work/reach what you need to depending on what heights are involved. All can be worked around, but in my opinion it's definitely not all the same once horizontal as the saying goes.

In Missionary it can be more difficult to kiss if the top is alot shorter than the bottom.

To add on to these comments. 
I definitely think there's a certain amount of mutually assured destruction behind why they don't truly crack down on this hobby/profession the way they could if they really wanted to in the U.S. In addition to the resource management, practicality, and crime priority level aspect of it. A not insignificant amount of cops, politicians, and high profile/high power people also are clients. Some of whom are fairly known in an "open secret" kind of way in some circles.
If they really tried to come down on this with indiscriminate full force, they wouldn't be able to protect the massive amount of themselves/each other who also engage in this and they'd be at high risk of exposing themselves and people having their secrets get out. And i think that is part of why they tend to mostly go after this in such a targeted manner mainly when it serves other purposes like the reasons Soloyo215 listed.
I think the powers that be would love to have the law be the same as how it is in the U.K., but because of how the U.S. has been culturally for so long it'll effectively be impossible to ever pass any true State or National level legalization for a long time.

To add on to these comments. 
I definitely think there's a certain amount of mutually assured destruction behind why they don't truly crack down on this hobby/profession the way they could if they really wanted to in the U.S. In addition to the resource management, practicality, and crime priority level aspect of it. A not insignificant amount of cops, politicians, and high profile/high power people also are clients. Some of whom are fairly known in an "open secret" kind of way in some circles.
If they really tried to come down on this with indiscriminate full force, they wouldn't be able to protect the massive amount of themselves/each other who also engage in this and they'd be at high risk of exposing themselves and people having their secrets get out. And i think that is part of why they tend to mostly go after this in such a targeted manner mainly when it serves other purposes like the reasons Soloyo215 listed.
I think the powers that be would love to have the law be the same as how it is in the U.K., but because of how the U.S. has been culturally for so long it'll effectively be impossible to ever pass any true State or National level legalization for a long time.

It's not really that black and white anymore. Unless the guy is an actual certified massage therapist, there's just a ton of gray area and crossover between masseurs who also "go further" and only charge masseur rate and escorts who do massage as foreplay for escort rate. There are guys who do full massage with escort fun at the end for masseur prices, vice versa, and everything in between.
But yes, communicate with the provider and make sure you're on the same page with them about what you're doing and the rate.
My recommendation for OP is MikeChris/Piko though: https://rentmasseur.com/MikeChris
 

Reminded me of a notorious vice bust many years ago here in London. Prostitution per se is not illegal in England, for a single provider working in private. Beyond that, there's a forest of legal no-nos: soliciting in public, pimping, running a brothel, and the quaint 'living on immoral earnings' which, I recall, once saw a respectable businessman convicted (and upheld on appeal) because his tenant was - unknown to him - working as a prostitute from the flat he'd rented to her, so that the rent he received from her was 'immoral'. But I digress.
From https://www.thejusticegap.com/a-very-bad-case-of-brothel-keeping/
" In her home [in suburban London] [Cynthia Payne] held sex parties ... a flat fee included food, drink, a film, a live show and the sexual services of one woman. The fame of Cynthia’s parties spread and women who sought to sell sexual services were attracted to her establishment, some of those present at the premises [when the police raided] on 4th December 1978 were there simply to earn extra cash for Christmas. But this very British carry-on came to an end after an anonymous letter was sent to police.
The simple offence of keeping a brothel would have only allowed a magistrate to sentence her at most to six months in prison and so [the police] relied on an offence which existed at common law ... the offence of keeping a disorderly house. The definition of that offence dated back to 1751, but the offence itself dated back to the time of [King] Henry 3rd [reigned 1216-1272] , when parliament became concerned that a group of women had set up a brothel just south of Fleet Street [in London] and close to a Friary.
When Cynthia Payne appeared at the ... Inner London Crown Court, in April 1979 she faced 21 charges and was represented by [a] prominent human rights barrister ... She pleaded guilty to only three charges of controlling prostitution and one of keeping a disorderly house.
The facts put before the court, which were undisputed, were that those present on the day of her arrest were all consenting adults who chose to be there. It was accepted by the prosecution that Cynthia [Payne] had not recruited the women. There was no question of coercion or corruption by her. The clients knew perfectly well what they were doing, none of the neighbours complained and the women were not obliged to have sex and could say no. It was a safe establishment for them to trade in with no dangers. The police superintendent in charge of the case gave evidence to the court that Cynthia’s clients were principally middle aged and elderly business men, managing directors [=CEOs] accountants, barristers, solicitors [=attorneys, lawyers], a member of parliament [lawmaker] for Ireland, a member of the House of Lords and not to forget several vicars [=priests]. "
-----
Payne was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment (reduced to six months on appeal) and none of the men were charged - there was nothing to charge them with. Word at the time was that the very highest-profile customers were discreetly shown out of the back door by the police when they raided and never appeared on the list of customer names.  That list was never made public, although it was produced to the judges in the case. Conspicuous by its absence in the categories of customer above is ... ... judges. Enough said. 
 

Maybe, but i don't think it'd go as far as suggested. I could see it maybe screening initial inquiries if a provider so chooses. But if i was a provider, i personally would still want to have viable client candidates given to me by the AI and give the final ok on which one i take and when for myself. I just would want it to weed out time wasters or incompatible clients. I wouldn't want it accepting meets and booking my calendar for me.
As someone who's tried implementing AI into my job and found a lot of it's limitations and where it falls short of the over hype/marketing. There's things it's just not ready for yet and it still needs lots of hand-holding and double checking it's work. AI/LLMs (Large Language Models) despite all the marketing, are not sentient, aren't aware of what they say to you, will spit out incorrect information confidently, and AI agents have done things like accidentally delete a users hard drive and other dumb stuff.
When it comes to reply delays. I kind of see it like when people text you and don't get a response, so then they call you thinking that will make you pick up and it's like, if I'm not available to reply to a text I'm also not available to answer a call haha. But like in the scenario a provider is busy working and can't give the final ok to a meet the AI setup and passed along. There's still going to be a delay till the provider gets back to their computer/phone or whatever to give the final ok. Both clients and providers really need to just accept that people aren't staring at their inbox or obligated to be reachable 24/7 and get over it, in my opinion 😆.
Another big issue AI use in this raises is discretion/privacy. Unless the provider is using their own self hosted implementation of an open source AI. Things like ChatGPT are logging everything you input to it and sending it home to OpenAI for further training model use (some AI platforms claim to let you opt out of this, but do they really with how this space currently has zero regulation, no one actually knows).
Things you put into ChatGPT are held in record and can be used against you in court for example. And in places where what we all engage in here isn't exactly legal, it'd be very not smart to use AIs in this way unless you setup a private one. Which the average person wouldn't know how to do and would just default to ChatGPT.
We already can't even get everyone who does this to use encrypted messaging apps like Signal as is 🤣

One of my regulars actually IS a cop, though he technically operates in a different city. 
It's not cops that providers are concerned with, but entrapment and some questions and approaches are definitely hinting at that. So have some discretion and decorum in communication.

Just my two cents: I think that in USA there are specific reasons for busts to happen, one being politics, as in election year when some a-hole politician's platform is around ending things that they deem immoral, but I have seen certain busts being used as a nuisance to force places to close after neighbors complaints or after some businesses or entities interested in gentrifying the area want the place to close or move. Also in instances when the FBI or the police are interested in one individual for one specific reason.

The opinions above aren't really "cavalier", just realistic based on knowing how police have to prioritize who they go after. You're not wrong that political climate is a factor as some of us have said. But your method isn't really any safer, sting operations wait till you make a deal verbally in person because they have to actually catch you red handed. So you're not actually lowering your chances much.

I don't like the idea of having to deal with an AI pimp. 😀
When agencies were more abundant, only one I dealt with seem to be straight forward. The other I dealt with I often, felt like I was getting the runaround when I asked for/about specific providers. With everyone, I felt a level of detachment from the provider because I couldn't ask him directly certain things. Every provider I met through an agency ultimately gave me their direct contact because they hated having to have contact with a go-between.
Yes, I see the advantages of AI for a swamped provider, but there is also the possible issue of AI giving incorrect information and the disconnect it provides.
 

Yeah i think that rule will have a huge impact. There's more details to that 5 years of social media history thing too. It's not just social media history. They're also proposing requiring "the gathering of an applicant's telephone numbers and email addresses used over the last five and 10 years respectively" and similar information about their immediate family members... It's in a 60 day public comment period, but if it's enacted as originally proposed it will have a devastating impact on tourism (and thus providers who may want to come to the US from elsewhere).
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dz0g2ykpeo

it's expensive to live in many of these cities, and I think more guys need to supplement their income to make ends meet; plus, I think it's just harder for young people to get started in life