Asking a provider’s political affiliation?

[Simon Suraci]

So today someone asked me this via PM. Someone I have never chatted with before.
The member will remain anonymous.

We are not permitted to discuss politics, so please refrain from discussing any of your personal affiliations or opinions about any political party or public figures. Stick to your opinion about whether you think it is ok to ask a member or a provider the question in the first place.

The question put me in a tough place. I don’t think I am particularly opaque in my views (which I will not discuss here), so I was puzzled someone would even ask. So I asked why they want to know. I also quoted community guideline 16 which states that the rest of the guidelines apply to private messages, one of which is we can’t discuss politics or religion on this platform.

This member proceeded to tell me that they had left a positive comment about a provider and later learned the political affiliation of that provider. That affiliation was different from the member’s affiliation and so he wished to remove the positive comment based solely on that affiliation. Why he thought I could help him with that task, or that I would be interested in doing so, I don’t know.

I told him that he should hire based on other things like professionalism, skill, and good communication, and not political affiliation. I didn’t know what his affiliation was by the way. I would say the same if he aligns with my affiliation or differs from it. 

He then told me that I was attacking him. I’m baffled.

Do you consider political affiliation at all in your hiring decisions? Assume the provider does not discuss politics in his sessions, and he does not push any ideological agenda in the course of performing his work. Would you choose not to hire someone because their political affiliation differs from yours?

[Luv2play]

Interesting question given the current political conditions not just in North America but everywhere. I answered no to all 3 questions above. I don’t care to know a provider’s opinions on politics and will only get into a brief discussion if they raise it first. I then try to stear the conversation back to more neutral topics. 

[pubic_assistance]

21 minutes ago, Simon Suraci said:

Would you choose not to hire someone because their political affiliation differs from yours?

Absolutely NOT.

Thats just bizarre.

 

[mike carey]

Long story short, I don't think it's appropriate to ask anyone here or when hiring, nor would I generally share my views.

Generally I don't care about affiliation when I'm hiring, BUT if a provider aggressively prosecutes their political views I'm more likely to back away, and that applies whether they share my broad preferences or not. I don't want someone telling me how Party A or Political View A is the only one that a sane person would consider, either because I don't agree, or because I don't want to be forced to discuss a more extreme or differently focussed perspective on the politics I support.

I don't mind talking about political views, but I don't want it to become the dominant narrative in a conversation I have in these forums or with a provider, and have had such conversations with a few here or around the pool at InnDulge.

[+ ApexNomad]

21 minutes ago, Simon Suraci said:

So today someone asked me this via PM. Someone I have never chatted with before.
The member will remain anonymous.

We are not permitted to discuss politics, so please refrain from discussing any of your personal affiliations or opinions about any political party or public figures. Stick to your opinion about whether you think it is ok to ask a member or a provider the question in the first place.

The question put me in a tough place. I don’t think I am particularly opaque in my views (which I will not discuss here), so I was puzzled someone would even ask. So I asked why they want to know. I also quoted community guideline 16 which states that the rest of the guidelines apply to private messages, one of which is we can’t discuss politics or religion on this platform.

This member proceeded to tell me that they had left a positive comment about a provider and later learned the political affiliation of that provider. That affiliation was different from the member’s affiliation and so he wished to remove the positive comment based solely on that affiliation. Why he thought I could help him with that task, or that I would be interested in doing so, I don’t know.

I told him that he should hire based on other things like professionalism, skill, and good communication, and not political affiliation. I didn’t know what his affiliation was by the way. I would say the same if he aligns with my affiliation or differs from it. 

He then told me that I was attacking him. I’m baffled.

Do you consider political affiliation at all in your hiring decisions? Assume the provider does not discuss politics in his sessions, and he does not push any ideological agenda in the course of performing his work. Would you choose not to hire someone because their political affiliation differs from yours?

That’s a really thoughtful—and honestly, complicated—question.

I believe that in a professional context, especially when it comes to hiring or evaluating someone’s work, the focus should remain on merit: their competence, integrity, professionalism, and how they treat others. If someone does their job well, respects boundaries, and maintains a neutral space free from ideological imposition, then I don’t see political affiliation as a relevant metric—just as I wouldn’t judge someone’s qualifications based on their favorite football team or preferred coffee order.

That said, I also recognize we live in an increasingly polarized world, and political affiliation today can feel personal to many people. It’s often tied to values, identity, and how we see the world—not just policy positions. So I understand the emotional impulse to withdraw support if someone’s political stance feels threatening to your sense of self or community.

But here’s the thing: once we start judging each other solely through the lens of tribal affiliations, we risk missing out on meaningful human interactions and even unexpected moments of growth. I don’t want to live in a world where everyone I hire, befriend, or engage with must reflect my worldview exactly. That seems like a recipe for stagnation.

So, assuming the provider keeps politics out of the room and shows respect for all clients, I personally wouldn’t let political differences override professionalism and skill. To do so feels like making a decision out of fear or prejudice, not principle.

In the end, we can’t control what others believe—but we can control how we respond. And maybe the most radical act today is to choose understanding over assumption.

[Lotus-eater]

I would if it caused a fight that resulted in a steamier make up session. 😉

Edited May 4 by Lotus-eater

[moonlight]

Question 1: No. Question 2: Almost always no but maayybee if they broach the subject and you've already met several times and are familiar with each other. It would depend on the dynamics but I'd of course always lean toward not discussing politics or religion.

Would I chose not to hire someone based on their beliefs? Mostly no, but maybe if their beliefs are so whacky that I question their general sanity and how that might apply to my safety. Just voting for "the other side" wouldn't fit within that.

It's an inappropriate question from a prospective client and you're wise not to go forward with that. Your response was gracious.

 

Edited May 4 by moonlight

[BuffaloKyle]

1. We talk about tons of taboo sex stuff on here so if I was asked about that in a pm I wouldn't be offended as I share way more personal information than my political views in the open forum. Whenever I ask anyone anything in a pm I always do say if you don't wish to share that's more than ok with me.

2. Hell no! Why would you wanna go down that road! Just asking for trouble.

3. No since I don't want to know their political views.

[Wings246]

1. No, unless you want to befriend that person on a deeper level?

2. & 3. Personally, no, but I can imagine someone who wants to fantasize about a BFE may want to seek an imaginary BF who shares (or at least pretends to share) the same political stance?  Or, it can be the direct opposite: someone may be looking for an imaginary BF who holds different political beliefs and may get some kinds of unnamed satisfaction from an intellectual debate?  Perhaps political affinity/conflict may even be stimulating to some people?  A special niche/kink to some???   😁

Edited May 4 by Wings246

[Nightowl]

I answered “no, “no,” and “it depends.”. I saw a masseur for strictly therapeutic massage twice over several months and he spent part of both sessions on topics that clearly indicated that he was on a different side of the political spectrum than I. During the second visit I found myself getting agitated by what he was saying because I was there to release stress and muscular tightness, and the conversation was making me more tense since I was biting my tongue to keep from saying anything argumentative.  Though the massage was great, I opted not to go back. So I guess that, if I know his political affiliation and I know he’s going to talk to me about it and stress me out,, I probably won’t hire him. I prefer not to know and not to tell so that we can both enjoy each other’s company.

[Km411]

I don’t screen for political beliefs and never initiate political dialogue, but if I learned of a provider’s political beliefs and they conflicted with my values I would not hire. Interestingly, I see this more and more on the apps—don’t message me if you’re this or that. 

I make exceptions. I was meeting up with someone regularly. One evening over dinner we got to talking about an upcoming election. Our views were polar opposites. We argued about it for a hour. He was really hot and it was a total turn on, so…. 

[Km411]

4 hours ago, ApexNomad said:

So, assuming the provider keeps politics out of the room and shows respect for all clients, I personally wouldn’t let political differences override professionalism and skill. To do so feels like making a decision out of fear or prejudice, not principle.

I respectfully disagree. Political differences can override professionalism and skill if you believe they conflict with strongly held values or threaten your way of life. In this case, I don’t believe the decision is fear-based or grounded in prejudice but in fact based on principle.

[+ Jamie21]

If a client shares his political views with me and they are the opposite of mine, I just respond neutrally but I make sure that when working out their tight knots (because these people do usually carry a lot of tension 😂) that I apply extreme pressure whilst saying ‘if it hurts it’s doing good’…as they groan in pain. I might even slap their bum ‘playfully’. They deserve it. 

My answers: 

1: No because it’s not allowed. But one can usually guess people’s political views by their comments anyway.

2:  Yes ask if you want to know. If it matters to your hiring then you need to know (and so do I…. which is the most important thing…see my response above 😉).

3: I get hired so it’s not a question for me but I don’t see why one wouldn’t take it into consideration if a provider is known to have extreme views. 
 

[ShortCutie7]

1- No

2- No

3- No, BUT there’s one specific issue that if I get the sense a provider would have a strong opinion on in one direction (whether by him posting about it on X or having some key words in his profile), I would not hire him because I would feel unsafe. 

Edited May 4 by ShortCutie7
Syntax

[+ DrownedBoy]

I hire providers to do physical activity, not talk or think about politics. Nor do many have enough knowledge to say anything meaningful about politics.

I found hiring Latinos who speak functional English, but don't have words for more abstract concepts, are perfect here. I can spend hours listening to them and not hear a thing about politics or the news.

[+ ApexNomad]

10 hours ago, Km411 said:

I respectfully disagree. Political differences can override professionalism and skill if you believe they conflict with strongly held values or threaten your way of life. In this case, I don’t believe the decision is fear-based or grounded in prejudice but in fact based on principle.

Political differences can override professionalism and skill if you believe they conflict with your values or threaten your way of life—but that’s on you, not the provider. A true professional won’t let personal beliefs interfere with their work.

And if you do know their political beliefs, and they’ve done nothing but treat you with respect and professionalism—never compromising your safety or dignity—then choosing to disengage is, in my view, driven by fear or prejudice, not principle.

[Km411]

Of course it’s on the client to make that decision; that was the OP’s question.

I respect your view and would’ve subscribed to it in a more genteel era. But, in the current climate, many people on both sides of the political spectrum view the other side as an existential threat. For them, a decision not to patronize could very well be based on principle. Indeed, there are many businesses that deliver quality products and services in a professional manner yet their perceived politics lead to nationwide boycotts. It’s for many a statement of principle. In my view, to generalize that such decisions are fear- or prejudice-based demeans them and their principles.

[+ ApexNomad]

12 minutes ago, Km411 said:

Of course it’s on the client to make that decision; that was the OP’s question.

I respect your view and would’ve subscribed to it in a more genteel era. But, in the current climate, many people on both sides of the political spectrum view the other side as an existential threat. For them, a decision not to patronize could very well be based on principle. Indeed, there are many businesses that deliver quality products and services in a professional manner yet their perceived politics lead to nationwide boycotts. It’s for many a statement of principle. In my view, to generalize that such decisions are fear- or prejudice-based demeans them and their principles.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I agree—there are cases where withholding support is a principled stand, especially when a business openly promotes harmful ideologies or takes actions that impact communities negatively. In those situations, choosing not to engage can absolutely reflect strong, values-based convictions.

But I reject the idea that my stance demeans anyone or their principles. That’s not my intention at all. I’m not dismissing the importance of values—I’m questioning whether all decisions made in the name of “principle” are truly that, or whether some are reactions based on discomfort or assumptions, especially when there’s no evidence of harm or unprofessional conduct.

I think there’s a meaningful difference between standing up for your beliefs and shutting someone out for who you think they are. My concern is that if we’re not careful, we risk calling it principle when it’s really just division.

[Km411]

8 minutes ago, ApexNomad said:

I think there’s a meaningful difference between standing up for your beliefs and shutting someone out for who you think they are. My concern is that if we’re not careful, we risk calling it principle when it’s really just division.

I’m in full agreement.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

If the escort is smart, he reads the room quickly and adjusts.

Cutting one's nose off to spite your face is often considered, and this is a technical term, a fucking stupid move.

[+ purplekow]

I am not interested in an escort's hard line political views, I am interested in a hard line to a hot encounter.  That being said, after several sessions, if the escort brings it politics, I note it and I do not respond with an opinion.  If, then on the second occasion the subject is broken,  I will mention that I prefer not to discuss political ideology.  If an escort mentions politics on a first encounter, I will tell him then that I prefer not to discuss politics.  

As to whether I would refuse to hire an escort related to political beliefs, the answer is generally no.  However, I once had a patient come into my office and in doing his exam, he revealed a swastika tattoo covering his entire back.  I completed the exam but was very happy when that patient did not return.  If I went to hire an escort and he revealed as similar tattoo, I would not hire him, no matter how hot he was otherwise.  

Edited May 4 by purplekow

[+ WstVlgChris]

I answered 1 & 2 No; but 3 Yes, due to a recent experience. I was getting a massage last month from a guy whom I had seen a few times and whom I was hoping to become my #2 go-to (I had had a 4 hands with this man and my #1 and it worked well). A political issue came up and what he said was so ill informed and racist that it really soured me on him. I am not going to hire him again.  

[+ purplekow]

4 minutes ago, WstVlgChris said:

I answered 1 & 2 No; but 3 Yes, due to a recent experience. I was getting a massage last month from a guy whom I had seen a few times and whom I was hoping to become my #2 go-to (I had had a 4 hands with this man and my #1 and it worked well). A political issue came up and what he said was so ill informed and racist that it really soured me on him. I am not going to hire him again.  

It is not his affiliation that got you it seems, but the ignorance.  I will opt out of hiring an escort who displays significant ignorance no matter their political affiliation.  

[FaustOust]

I think anyone can be asked their political affiliation; the real matter is whether one chooses to answer the question and the consequences for answering truthfully. 

I would take political affiliation in account for hiring if the provider’s extreme political views were already known to me or would potentially present danger, particularly for a BFE— for example, I would not go on a date with a known Nazi, or  someone with Nazi tattoos, or someone who was any other avowed racial supremacist. Moreover, with that knowledge, I would find any sexual encounter with them repulsive. 
 

 

[topunderachiever]

The right won't hire the left.  

The left won't hire the right.  

Tribal.