Providers also on Hookup Apps

[topunderachiever]

Kinda like it's better not knowing how the sausage is made?    🤪

[Jack Vernon]

On 4/21/2026 at 4:31 PM, ApexNomad said:

I think that’s reading too much into it. Noticing something and wanting to hear others’ opinions, in a forum, doesn’t automatically mean someone’s ego is bruised, that’s just discussion.

In this case, the OP saw something that didn’t sit right with them and it changed how they felt about hiring. As I mentioned, part of what people are paying for is an experience that feels at least somewhat genuine. If something breaks that illusion or highlights a disconnect in how someone presents themselves, it’s completely reasonable for that to affect your interest.

The OP noticed it, chose not to book, and made one post about it asking for other opinions. I don’t see anything here that suggests he’s rocking himself to sleep crying in a corner in the fetal position. 

Spot on.  I'm not offended or upset in any way.  The provider is entitled to his opinions and preferences and I wish him nothing but the best.  I just found it interesting and wondered how others felt about it.  

This is similar to why I wouldn't shop at Hobby Lobby because of their very public and open support of policies and practices I find offensive.   Viewed from that angle, the provider did me a favor.  I moved on to another provider and had a great time with zero knowledge of his personal quirks and idiosyncrasies.  

[jackcali]

5 hours ago, Jamie21 said:

These are physical characteristics. Do you get my point? The best escorts disregard these. What matters is how you behave not what you look like. 

Peace, Jamie.  We are in violent agreement.  Physical characteristics are objective realities that we cannot consciously disassociate from, but the ability to disregard and even to cast an aura of disbelief of those realities are wonderful skills in an escort.  A great escort will, while we're together, make me feel younger or better looking than I am.  That feeling only lasts until reality again intrudes (I have to look at myself in the mirror the next morning) but I'm fine with that.  The temporary relief from reality is good enough, and it's really all one can hope for.   

[Wings246]

@Jack Vernon: in essence, this is reminiscent — or a modified version — of cancel culture.  Are you going to contribute to someone’s financial wellbeing when he explicitly announces his aversion to a characteristic that you possess as a human being?  Although some people see it as an expression of personal preferences, this honest truth will likely burst the imaginary bubbles of the clients’ fantasies, which can be an essential component of the transaction as @ApexNomad has pointed out upthread.

Perhaps it’s easy for those who are solely seeking physical enjoyment to compartmentalize the providers’ work and personal lives (and preferences).  Nonetheless, for those who place an emphasis on the emotional and psychological aspects of hiring (like myself), this kind of honesty will directly impact my decision-making process.

[KeepItReal]

9 hours ago, FrankR said:

So where do you draw the line in terms of the information you can use to decide to hire?  Do you judge a provider just on their rentmen profile? Do you read his reviews on rentmen. Do you read his reviews here?  
 

What is the difference between a review here that says “he was not into it, I dont think he liked xyz” vs a public profile on a dating app that says “I don’t like xyz”.  

We all make decision based on the data points we have available - dont be so quick to judge someone for their decision making. Both the client and the provider have the right to make their own decision based on what they know.  
 

I could label you delusional for ignoring a data point that came directly from the provider, but I wont because labeling people is not cool. 

 

 

How dare you, sir!  How can you suggest that we should make an informed decision based on all information available to us?  Who do you think we are? Mr Spock?  🖖

[Tajoki]

Interesting topic.

I don’t think this is about whether providers are “allowed” to have preferences — of course they are. That part feels obvious.

What this situation highlights for me is something a bit deeper about how these bookings actually work.

When people hire, they’re not just paying for the physical act. Part of the value is the feeling of being wanted, or at least not being actively outside of someone’s type. It’s understood that it’s transactional, but there’s still a layer of perceived desire that makes the experience land differently.

Seeing a personal profile that’s very blunt or exclusionary doesn’t offend me — but it does change the framing. It introduces a gap between how someone presents professionally versus how they express themselves personally, and that gap can make the experience feel more transactional than immersive.

At that point, it’s not about judging him or taking it personally. It’s just a different risk profile as a client:

• higher chance the vibe feels mechanical
• less confidence in genuine engagement
• harder to buy into the experience

So for me, it’s less “he shouldn’t have preferences” and more “this specific signal lowers the value of the booking.”

Everyone’s threshold will be different, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to factor that into a decision and just move on.