Deposits & Screening

[God]

Thank you. This is a great post.

:good:

 

[JessieJames]

I don’t blame ladies for taking the measure to do legal name screening. It’s dangerous job, physical/sexual assault the potential of losing your life are pretty big conequences.

You’re fortunate most of your SP’s down east are very professional. You’ll miss out on a lot of great ladies if you’re not willing to do legal name screening in your region.

Don’t mix your legal name with a review board handle or online persona. This is the one mistake that’ll usually cause you grief.

Be yourself, forget about the review board member and go have a good time. Don’t do legal name screening with SP’s who aren’t professional. Avoid childish, drama junkies.

Anyone doing legal name screening should be functioning at the highest level of professionalism.

What if you don't have a positive session and would like to review it but can't because your real identity will be held over you like a sledge hammer.

If a board handle or references are not enough, I prefer to move on to other ladies. No one paid encounter is worth ones own security.

 

[Sophia Sinclair]

"What If" goes both ways JJ!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM8V1XOI-14

 

[Jessica Rain]

I would just like to see examples of the "what if's" counter arguments that some men come back with.

I can show and have shown tons of real life examples of voilence against sex workers and therefore the need for screening.

I keep asking for numbers on all the blackmail cases and outing to family and work cases. And for nothing other then having a "bad session" that was reviewed.

There is always what ifs but never any real life examples from the other side. Until there is an equal playing field for real life examples between the sexes, these counterpoints are nothing more then attempts to undermine screening. Be it intensional or not.

 

[peace]

Unfortunately, one example is enough for both sides. The reality for hire for sex is that violence is everywhere especially when it is illegal and considered immoral. Hence, the call for legalization of prostitution. Of course this is not the only answer to combat these issues but it s a start. Meanwhile, people need to make choices to protect themselves. If you disagree with their choices, then seek elsewhere.

 

[Jessica Rain]

Unfortunately, one example is enough for both sides. The reality for hire for sex is that violence is everywhere especially when it is illegal and considered immoral. Hence, the call for legalization of prostitution. Of course this is not the only answer to combat these issues but it s a start. Meanwhile, people need to make choices to protect themselves. If you disagree with their choices, then seek elsewhere.

I totally agree. I am not here to insist men follow screening they are not comfortable with but I can't get on board with discussing a bunch of what-ifs when we have real life examples for the reasons we ask to use screening.

I can't see a logical thinking person would say I have no right to ask for your real name when bringing you to my private personal home. It only makes sense.

So if that doesn't work for a guy, I do my best to recommend someone else compatible who does not ask for the same level of screening because they have other things set up to help them. Be it a different location from
their personal home, working with another lady, or has security on site, etc.

I do my best to still help out the guy. Instead of what I see from a lot of men who come to boards and bitch about screening. I have had a man create a thread specifically about me and my screening. Questioning it, and others pile on making comments about outing and blackmail??? Really??? Cause that is fair to me. All because I want to be safe in my home before, during and after my session??? He could have just moved on to someone else.

Something has to give in these discussions but sadly, I just see women saying fucked it and not bothering to comment anymore. Which means there is no longer discussion.

 

[catherine st.claire]

Unfortunately, one example is enough for both sides. The reality for hire for sex is that violence is everywhere especially when it is illegal and considered immoral. Hence, the call for legalization of prostitution. Of course this is not the only answer to combat these issues but it s a start. Meanwhile, people need to make choices to protect themselves. If you disagree with their choices, then seek elsewhere.

I'm a little confused. Up until C36, prostitution was COMPLETELY LEGAL in Canada. What was illegal was providing incall, living off the avails and public solicitation. Canadian men have never been willing to verify even when the sale and purchase of sexual services were legal. Today, it's illegal to purchase but since legislation has passed, I have yet to find a single case in Canada where LE is going after online consensual purchasers. And given your prevalence on the board, please learn the difference between legalization and decriminalization. Legalized structures are inherently predatory and create a whole new set of issues for marginalized providers. Decriminalization simply allows us to do business under the same guidelines and structure as other businesses. This kind of ignorance is expected in the general public but if you are going to be immersed in the culture, perhaps it's best to know what it is that you are speaking of.

In the last decade of my personal research, I have never found anything concerning a legitimate provider blackmailing, outing or otherwise interfering with a client in Canada. I have found numerous situations where men had affairs and things got messy. I would love to hear from any client that had a legitimate provider engage in this kind of action. A provider who takes her reputation seriously, has established her brand whether indie or agency. I think if there actually is a legitimate concern, it's more likely to happen with low end providers who are trifling around on BP and are more grifter than service provider. That said, you get what you pay for. Discretion isn't anonymity as Jessica has so often said. A legitimate provider is never anonymous given we usually provide a location. It's never in our best interest to cause issues and those that think it's a high probability are simply dealing with the wrong providers or delusional.

smiles, cat

 

[demien3k5]

In the last decade of my personal research, I have never found anything concerning a legitimate provider blackmailing, outing or otherwise interfering with a client in Canada. I have found numerous situations where men had affairs and things got messy. I would love to hear from any client that had a legitimate provider engage in this kind of action. A provider who takes her reputation seriously, has established her brand whether indie or agency. I think if there actually is a legitimate concern, it's more likely to happen with low end providers who are trifling around on BP and are more grifter than service provider. That said, you get what you pay for. Discretion isn't anonymity as Jessica has so often said. A legitimate provider is never anonymous given we usually provide a location. It's never in our best interest to cause issues and those that think it's a high probability are simply dealing with the wrong providers or delusional.

smiles, cat

Are you aware of a very recent situation where a well-known and long-established massage parlour owner outted a client on Twitter after he was accused of improprieties with one of her attendants?

 

[Crimson Angel]

Me booking a session with an SP is not a necessary need. However it is her necessary need to make money. If I don't see an SP that's fit for me I just move on and not look back.

If she wants to have strict screening procedure, charge very high bucks, or whatever that's her prerogative. I'm not going to tell her how to run her business because it is her business. If she lose clients because of the way she runs it then she's the one who's going to think of a solution not me.

This is one of the most unique things about the escort business that is pretty much not seen anywhere else - whereas something like a piano teacher or massage therapist have to advertise themselves to the public to get more people to attend them, escorts for the most part are much more restrictive - from screening processes to high prices to strict rules about client's decor and meeting times, and yet they still make just as much money as piano teachers or massage therapists. I'm fine with it, but this really goes to show how insanely big of a demand there is for escorts compared to other things like piano teachers or massage therapists. The demand is so big that customers are actively complaining about high prices or strict screening procedures.

 

[catherine st.claire]

You do realize those "improprieties" was rape? Sexual assault became a very serious situation in the industry due to service bleeds after C36 passed. I have a list of non sexual service providers (those whose job doesn't entail penetration or oral) here in Ottawa who have been sexually assaulted at their work site (spa/strip club) where they have not been able to go to LE because owners don't want the publicity of a client being "outed". So providers who work in places where there is no "need" to genuinely verify are facing a new, very real danger and the risk is escalating exponentially. I have a separate list of escorts who have been robbed/attacked by non verified clients which means there is no information to give to LE. Combined the lists have over 3 dozen names for 2017 alone in a city 1/10th the size of Toronto. I can't imagine what TO's numbers look like. This list wasn't something I intentionally set out to compile and I haven't pursued it in a legitimate way. I simply ask in conversation to see what their experiences have been and they all have stated that it's become a very real, very scary daily reality and it's escalating.

Given my experience with spa owners, when a "well-known and long-established massage parlour owner" tweets something like that, I know it's because she doesn't want another provider raped. If clients don't rape/rob/assault someone, there won't be an issue. He wasn't blacklisted for no showing, bad hygiene or just being obtuse. By the time a provider decides to put someone on a BDL, the client has crossed several boundaries. It would take too much of our time to list all the twatwaffle behaviour and we simply don't have that kind of time to waste on non dangerous situations...

smiles, cat

 

[Madman]

Are you aware of a very recent situation where a well-known and long-established massage parlour owner outted a client on Twitter after he was accused of improprieties with one of her attendants?

When I was active my identity was protected at all cost and would also be today if I returned to the game.

 

[Jessica Rain]

When I was active my identity was protected at all cost and would also be today if I returned to the game.

I am sure when you were in the game you also didn't act improperly either. A factor that kind of plays here.

 

[Madman]

I am sure when you were in the game you also didn't act improperly either. A factor that kind of plays here.

I was always respectful and followed the ladies lead. If I was told something was a no go, I respected that and never pushed any boundaries during a session.

 

[Jessica Rain]

I was always respectful and followed the ladies lead. If I was told something was a no go, I respected that and never pushed any boundaries during a session.

i always knew you were one of the good guys.

 

[demien3k5]

You do realize those "improprieties" was rape? ... Given my experience with spa owners, when a "well-known and long-established massage parlour owner" tweets something like that, I know it's because she doesn't want another provider raped. If clients don't rape/rob/assault someone, there won't be an issue. He wasn't blacklisted for no showing, bad hygiene or just being obtuse. By the time a provider decides to put someone on a BDL, the client has crossed several boundaries. It would take too much of our time to list all the twatwaffle behaviour and we simply don't have that kind of time to waste on non dangerous situations...

smiles, cat

If it was rape, were formal charges filed with the police? Was an arrest made? When will this case go to court to be formally tried under public scrutiny so that concrete evidence can be presented, the truth can come out and the offender can be punished under the law of the land as appropriate, meted out by legitimate authorities?

Or was the whole thing tried in the court of public opinion, with the establishment's owner acting as judge, jury and executioner?

Where does fairness and the truth come into play when people take the law into their own hands?

Or are there simply two sets of laws - one for SWs and another for everyone else? But only when it's convenient.

Vigilante behavior seems to be frowned upon by social justice warriors who regularly demand equal protection under the law, but then condone it when it suits their purposes. There's some twatwaffle behavior for you to munch on right there...

BTW - well-known and long-established does not automatically mean 'reputable' or 'credible' in the eyes of the law.

 

[catherine st.claire]

If it was rape, were formal charges filed with the police? Was an arrest made? When will this case go to court to be formally tried under public scrutiny so that concrete evidence can be presented, the truth can come out and the offender can be punished under the law of the land as appropriate, meted out by legitimate authorities?

Or was the whole thing tried in the court of public opinion, with the establishment's owner acting as judge, jury and executioner?

Where does fairness and the truth come into play when people take the law into their own hands?

Or are there simply two sets of laws - one for SWs and another for everyone else? But only when it's convenient.

Vigilante behavior seems to be frowned upon by social justice warriors who regularly demand equal protection under the law, but then condone it when it suits their purposes. There's some twatwaffle behavior for you to munch on right there...

BTW - well-known and long-established does not automatically mean 'reputable' or 'credible' in the eyes of the law.

The day LE actually takes investigating any sexual assault seriously, we can have a conversation. Until then, the goal is to keep providers safe. I appreciate the heads up when there is danger at hand as I'm sure most providers are...

smiles, cat

 

[demien3k5]

The day LE actually takes investigating any sexual assault seriously, we can have a conversation. Until then, the goal is to keep providers safe. I appreciate the heads up when there is danger at hand as I'm sure most providers are...

smiles, cat

This is pretty weak, cat. Feels very self-serving and convenient, and not representative of fact in the least, particularly in 2018 where sensitivity to sexual assault is apparently at an all time high!? Can you say #metoomovement #timesup

Your other comments seem to promote a 'Us vs. Them, At Any Cost' mentality which pits Providers against Clients. But then you'll turn and condemn the clients who do likewise and refuse/refute your screening practices and criteria as being wholly unreasonable. Hmmmmmm

Funny how that goes...

 

[Sophia Sinclair]

I feel that I have to weigh in here even though I know the person in question can read this, but I deem it important enough to do so to make a point for everyone.

I recently had to go to LE because I was being stalked. I made it very clear to the officer that I wanted to talk to Wendy Leaver's replacement but couldn't because that is Metro and I work in Halton. I know you don't like us keeping records but I have always maintained that I only do so to protect myself. If I wasn't as diligent as I am I probably would not have been able to prove that I had told this person to leave me alone and how they had completely ignored that by continuing to call, text and email me for 1.5 years afterward. I only informed LE when they started hanging around outside of my house uninvited. How they got my address I can only guess. I should also like to note that LE wanted to go to his home and I convinced them that a call from a voice of authority should do the trick. So far it has.

At no point did I feel judged by the female officer or not taken seriously by her. She was nothing but polite to me and as I was leaving took it upon herself to say to me that if I ever have a problem with a client I am to call them. I'm not happy about having had to expose myself to them but I left there confident that the immediate situation was resolved and that this will in no way negatively impact me or my business. Maybe I got lucky or maybe people have unfounded fears about how police relate to SWs in this day and age. She was utterly respectful towards me!

 

[catherine st.claire]

This is pretty weak, cat. Feels very self-serving and convenient, and not representative of fact in the least, particularly in 2018 where sensitivity to sexual assault is apparently at an all time high!? Can you say #metoomovement #timesup

Your other comments seem to promote a 'Us vs. Them, At Any Cost' mentality which pits Providers against Clients. But then you'll turn and condemn the clients who do likewise and refuse/refute your screening practices and criteria as being wholly unreasonable. Hmmmmmm

Funny how that goes...

It’s not weak, it’s just tired honesty. If you had any genuine interest and spent exactly 90 seconds, (that's how long it took me to search it just now) you would know that the last published Canadian rape conviction rate was 0.33%. That’s a 1/3 of 1% if the way I’ve written it isn’t clear. That’s 1519 convictions from 460 000 self reported rapes in Canada. If you feel these stats show that the police are seriously investigating rape then the conversation isn’t worth having.

Just last month a provider was raped by a civilian date who works for VIA, the police went to his work and he refused to speak with them so they closed the case. She posted his info and we circulated it. Walking away isn't acceptable and we have options. #metoo and #timesup is right. Rape us, rob us, beat us up and we now have options at our disposal that we've never had in the past. All we want is to be safe. To be safe at work, to be safe on the street, to be safe in our lives. How anyone can think that is unreasonable is beyond me.

Funny how that goes… Actually, there's nothing funny about it. The media coverage of the sensitivity movement hasn't equaled an increase in LE dealing with rape/sexual assault; they don't have the resources. If you think it does, spend a minute and look into it, it hasn't impacted conviction rates. If you don't want to inform yourself, it's not worth discussing.

There is no vs. in my nature, I assure you. I’m tired of spending over a decade trying to defend common sense. I’m tired of ignorance and I'm done candy coating things so no one is offended. What I’m not tired of is stepping in and for the millionth time explaining that providers assume all the risks in this industry, bare the weight of all the fall out and are denied basic labor protections. From the industry being coerced into accepting unsafe services as the norm to not being able to ensure our personal safety by asking for some kind of reassurance you don’t mean us harm. To feel justified that putting providers physical safety below a client’s imagined “risk” is questionable at best. There is no history of outing for anything other than abhorrent, violent behaviour. If you think us accepting violence as part of our work is acceptable then I’m sorry, it's another conversation not worth having.

I will say it seems this conversation only happens with some men who participate on review boards, the board lurkers and clients who aren’t on the boards gladly give up what is asked for and those are the ones who pay my bills. They see my posts and that makes it worth my while…

smiles, cat

 

[catherine st.claire]

@Sophia

I've also had excellent experiences with LE here in Ottawa, they've come a long way. I'd love to see more providers report violent offenders but if a provider doesn't have any legitimate information it's useless; there is nothing they can do. The only way to change it is for the good clients to realize how vital it is to verify. If the clients who intend no harm go ahead and verify, providers won't have to take an unverified client given the majority of clients are good clients and she can manage. It's a positive cycle that empowers the industry overall...

smiles, cat