Does RM have a responsibility to block ads from people like Brodie Sinclair?

[dms8512]

I don't expect any of these sites to be 100% squeaky clean, and everyone should (and hopefully does) approach any listing with caution. It's just the nature of this.

 

But when someone as notoriously dangerous as Brodie Sinclair purchases a listing on RM, doesn't ANYONE there look at it and say, "Hmm, maybe we shouldn't let him advertise on our site"?

 

There are sites with listings that are OBVIOUSLY sketchy and have low standards. Backpage comes to mind. But since RM has now taken over for RB as sort of the standard male escort site, don't they feel any obligation to help their users avoid obviously dangerous people like Sinclair?

 

There will always be random shitheads who use sites, even credible-seeming ones like RM, to hurt people and steal from people. And there will always be sites like Backpage who have no standards whatsoever and where people like Sinclair will always have the ability to advertise.

 

But doesn't RM feel ANY responsibility whatsoever to be above that shit and block Sinclair from advertising on their site?

[robberbaron4u]

The guiding rule of making a hire in the escort business is "caveat emptor", which is why I insist upon a "lunch interview" with any prospective hire, and, on occasion, make discreet inquiries as to the hire's background before admitting him to my personal life.

[Tonyko]

I kinda' think the over inflated sense of self importance reflected in his blogs AND his"out" rate will block him sufficiently 700$ LOL??? *ps I don't think he's "dangerous" as in he will rob or harm you or bring one of his assault weapons with him, but yah he's a delusional whackadoo everyone should stay clear of. (he is also hot no denying so I'm sure SOMEONE will pay his price and go for it)

[robberbaron4u]

$700 is a bargain for the opportunity of "exposure" in Vanity Fair. . .

[MikeyGMin]

But doesn't RM feel ANY responsibility whatsoever to be above that shit and block Sinclair from advertising on their site?

 

I actually don't think that they do. They provide a site for people to advertise and are not content providers. (I know it gets grey with their premium users and video content, etc.) They can hardly establish a board of standards and conduct, and would you really want them to? Do you want some staffer at RM to decide who you can and cannot view on their site?

 

I think they have a basic responsibility to take down fake pictures when the real person complains. As long as they are willing to post negative reviews, I think they are doing what little due diligence should be expected from an advertising site.

[+ Topseed]

No. It's a slippery slope.

[nynakedtop]

. As long as they are willing to post negative reviews, I think they are doing what little due diligence should be expected from an advertising site.

 

Not always!

[dms8512]

Thanks for the opinions. Figured this would make for a good conversation.

[Juan Vancouver]

I think maybe RM might be as oblivious to Brodie's dangerousness as myself.

 

Why is it that he is so notoriously dangerous?

[Despardo]

I think maybe RM might be as oblivious to Brodie's dangerousness as myself.

 

Why is it that he is so notoriously dangerous?

Thank you. I thought I was the only one out of the loop. I know Brodie only from his work with Jake Cruise and from his ridiculously overpriced ads. In what way is he dangerous, not that I am in any danger of hiring the guy. (I don't care how hot someone is, but there is the principle of "quantum valebant." I mean, would you pay $100 for a hamburger? It may be terrific, but it is still just a hamburger.

[MikeyGMin]

Pulled from the "Austin in General" thread. I was not aware of this either...

 

Oh, and be warned, "Derek" (Brodie Sinclair) is advertising again in Austin (the escort who caused the shake up at Gawker and outed a Conde Nast exec for no apparent reason). He seems psychotic. Suggest staying far far away, even if anyone could afford whatever he is charging. http://www.men4rentnow.com/gay/escort/male/massage/austin_/SexyStud2720/314310

[+ quoththeraven]

Sinclair is indiscreet bordering on extortionate (not his prices, which could be characterized that way as well, but his behavior). When a married to a woman Conde Nast exec canceled prior to a weekend with him because Sinclair seemed to be pressuring him to use his influence with a family member to intercede on Sinclair's behalf in a dispute with the federal government (that the family member didn't have anything to do with), Sinclair spilled all to Gawker, which published everything, needlessly outing the Conde Nast exec.

 

There's a thread about this around here somewhere.

 

Rentmen should get rid of proven scammers -- users of stolen pics, mostly, because thievery would be easy to allege but hard to prove without at least a police report. Beyond that, caveat emptor (Latin for "do your due diligence, the Internet is only a click away").

[Tonyko]

Sinclair is indiscreet bordering on extortionate (not his prices, which could be characterized that way as well, but his behavior). When a married to a woman Conde Nast exec canceled prior to a weekend with him because Sinclair seemed to be pressuring him to use his influence with a family member to intercede on Sinclair's behalf in a dispute with the federal government (that the family member didn't have anything to do with), Sinclair spilled all to Gawker, which published everything, needlessly outing the Conde Nast exec.

 

There's a thread about this around here somewhere.

 

Rentmen should get rid of proven scammers -- users of stolen pics, mostly, because thievery would be easy to allege but hard to prove without at least a police report. Beyond that, caveat emptor (Latin for "do your due diligence, the Internet is only a click away").

THINK it was about something inane he wanted someone to intervene on his behalf about, like an apartment security deposit he was being sued for, or something like that, no?

[+ quoththeraven]

THINK it was about something inane he wanted someone to intervene on his behalf about, like an apartment security deposit he was being sued for, or something like that, no?

 

It had something to do with housing, but without checking prior reportage or someone else mentioning further details, I don't remember. Whatever it was, thinking the exec's powerful relative had any sway or input was a stretch, to put it nicely. Besides, why was that something a rational person would bring up in this context?

[Tonyko]

It had something to do with housing, but without checking prior reportage or someone else mentioning further details, I don't remember. Whatever it was, thinking the exec's powerful relative had any sway or input was a stretch, to put it nicely. Besides, why was that something a rational person would bring up in this context?

No lol don't think "rational" and this boy belong in the same sentence lol. Regardless, his delusions of Monica Lewinski (sic) fame or riches via hush money obvs didn't pan out if he's trooling for clients as recently as last week

[rvwnsd]

I think maybe RM might be as oblivious to Brodie's dangerousness as myself.

 

Why is it that he is so notoriously dangerous?

 

I second Despardo's thank you for your post.

 

By now, several folks have answered your question, so no sense rehashing. Had I not read the articles about his accusations against the CFO of Conde Nast publishing (facilitated by Gawker) and the resulting articles about his Facebook posts and diatribes to various government officials, I would also not know that he is batshit crazy. However, I don't expect Rentmen to scour social media for potentially bad behavior. Where would they draw the line?

[+ saminseattle]

Well, this was awhile ago, but at one point they said, “RentMen.com feels it is our responsibility to protect the Community, our Members and visitors from well documented scam artists.” http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/scott-sloan-update-rentmen-responds.81076/#post-722797 More recently, after much urging and evidence gathering by Steven Kesslar and others, they removed several ads when the advertisers couldn’t produce photos to verify their identity. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/yet-another-fake-ad-on-rentmen.108377/page-4

 

Of course, in this case, the complaint is not so much about false pictures as Mr. Sinclair’s outing the exec. when he didn’t get the assistance he was looking for, so maybe that’s a distinction.

 

In any event, while they seem to be willing to pull people’s ads in well documented cases, I can understand that they don’t want to spend a lot of resources investigating people’s complaints, many of which may be motivated by competitiveness or vindictiveness rather than anything genuine. In this end, as long as this business remains in the shadows, legally or otherwise, all sides will have to proceed with caution.

[rvwnsd]

...In any event, while they seem to be willing to pull people’s ads in well documented cases, I can understand that they don’t want to spend a lot of resources investigating people’s complaints, many of which may be motivated by competitiveness or vindictiveness rather than anything genuine. In this end, as long as this business remains in the shadows, legally or otherwise, all sides will have to proceed with caution.

 

The key here is they need to receive a complaint in order to investigate. If someone doesn't complain that an advertiser has done something shady, they have nothing to investigate.

[+ dutchmuch]

"caveat emptor" and do your due diligence before meeting with a stranger, certainly for bed-work!

[instudiocity]

The CFO of Condé Nast is the brother of former Secretary of the Treasury Timithy Geitner. So BS thought he had pull with the government.

 

And it's not a forgone conclusion Geitner, the CFO, actually did solicit BS.

[+ quoththeraven]

Well, this was awhile ago, but at one point they said, “RentMen.com feels it is our responsibility to protect the Community, our Members and visitors from well documented scam artists.” http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/scott-sloan-update-rentmen-responds.81076/#post-722797 More recently, after much urging and evidence gathering by Steven Kesslar and others, they removed several ads when the advertisers couldn’t produce photos to verify their identity. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/yet-another-fake-ad-on-rentmen.108377/page-4

 

Of course, in this case, the complaint is not so much about false pictures as Mr. Sinclair’s outing the exec. when he didn’t get the assistance he was looking for, so maybe that’s a distinction.

 

In any event, while they seem to be willing to pull people’s ads in well documented cases, I can understand that they don’t want to spend a lot of resources investigating people’s complaints, many of which may be motivated by competitiveness or vindictiveness rather than anything genuine.

 

How is Brodie Sinclair a scam artist as opposed to a flake, conspiracy theorist, someone with poor judgment, or influence peddler? (Out of deference to people living with mental health issues and the fact that I'm not a mental health professional, I'm not even going to get into that can of worms.)

 

RentMen rightfully doesn't scour or censor ads based on statements about sexual practices or the use of drugs, both of which are risks for clients. Why is this any different?

 

The CFO of Condé Nast is the brother of former Secretary of the Treasury Timithy Geitner. So BS thought he had pull with the government.

 

And it's not a forgone conclusion Geitner, the CFO, actually did solicit BS.

 

Since it was widely publicized outside of Gawker, Gawker took the post down because it became convinced that the reporting was intrusive, not untrue, and the person in question did not even make noises about suing for defamation -- which this would be if it were untrue, and it would be defamation by EVERY MEDIA OUTLET that republished it -- I think we can take it as established that the reporting was substantially accurate.

 

Also, it bothers me that you felt compelled to mention the powerful relative's name here, which is tantamount to naming the person Brodie Sinclair targeted. Was letting people look the old thread up on their own not enough? It makes your claim that "it's not a foregone conclusion that ... the CFO ... actually did solicit BS" seem disingenuous. If it's not a foregone conclusion, why are you repeating his name and identity in this thread?

[MikeBiDude]

.....But doesn't RM feel ANY responsibility whatsoever to be above that shit and block Sinclair from advertising on their site?

Brodie Update, "available now" 6/22/16:

https://rentmen.com/Rentmensfinest

 

Check text of his ad, he's now a political terror whistleblower, lol! Almost Sereen-sounding...

 

>>

Pornstar that exposed Obama and Putin

Hi my name is Brodie Sinclair I'm a high profile pornstar. I'm open to travel, with a deposit and airfare. I'm 5-11, 190 lb. Enjoy traveling the world,meeting new people working out, fine dining, shopping, art, theater, etc I am a very clean, classy guy and pride myself in my appearance and personality. I can hold an intelligent conversation, very professional and mature, but at the same time fun and outgoing.

 

 

Look me up on my personal Facebook page "Leif Derek Truitt". You will see that Vladimir Putin was behind the downing of Germanwings, MH370, MH 17, Egyptair 804, Paris & Brussels attacks, 9/11/01, and Orlando attack, etc. <<

[rvwnsd]

Brodie Update, "available now" 6/22/16:

https://rentmen.com/Rentmensfinest

 

Check text of his ad, he's now a political terror whistleblower, lol! Almost Sereen-sounding...

...

 

I might be wrong, but didn't Sereen save the wacked-out shit for his website? This one is putting it in his ad. Does he think it will get him business?

[dcguy20]

His current headline on his ad was enough to make me block him on RM. My reaction when I saw it, what an ass.

[DonaldTramp]

Glad to see he has lowered his outcall rate from 1,000 to 700. Must be some sort of conspiracy theory.