Makes sense , thanks for the advice, I’ve been a bit careless a couple of time by sending government ID (but not my LinkedIn xD ).
But it’s been awhile and none of them showed at my workplace yet.
Client security
- Thread starter urquell
- Start date
But it’s been awhile and none of them showed at my workplace yet.
Many actually make a point of asking for your Linkedin ID.
I will never give any kind of ID at all. I am also single and I don’t have a problem seeing SP but I am certainly not going to advertise it nor give anyone a direct link to me seeing as it is not a legal activity if they can prove that you see them for anything else other than companionship.
LinkedIn is next level. You can clearly see the malicious intent to go after you or your job if something goes bad. As if a deposit or a reference is not enough.
I think all this nonsense about asking for LinkedIn and drivers licence is happening cause some clients gladly provide it. If 0 client would ever provide it they wouldn’t be asking for this kind of informations.
Last edited:
Next time ask them for their id too lol. They are in no authority to be asking for this ever.
Fellow friends please do not get tricked.
Yeah, lotta manufactured cautionary tales out here from people who don't participate in any of these measures. If it's not a thing you do, don't. If they ask and you don't want to provide, look elsewhere. No one is making you. You ask strangers for access to their bodies and their safety, using a anonymous email or text, and we're flabbergasted that they have the audacity to ask for your ID.
There's no client-side demand-driven market conditions that are gonna move that needle back, nor should there be.
There's no client-side demand-driven market conditions that are gonna move that needle back, nor should there be.
Yeaaaah....no. It's not that simple. It's not about choosing to do or not do it. That decision is always available, and of course people on either side of the equation can agree or disagree as they like and look elsewhere if they so choose. That's not really the point. The overarching theme of the thread is to make people aware of why they should be making those choices in the first place, and in what situations it might be necessary to make choices, or in other areas where it's not really an issue to start with. It's clear from the reactions in this thread that some people truly aren't aware of some of the potential dangers, and weren't really aware that they even had the option to do things a different way. It's not about whether people have the right to choose or not, that's obvious. It's about being able to make better and more informed choices about their own personal safety. The SPs do that as a matter of course, as they should. Many clients clearly do not, but they should be too.
Also, if you think I've manufactured even one single danger or incident in anything that I've described then you need to reconsider what you've read, and realize how much of this might not apply to you because you play in a small pond, relatively speaking. That has already been discussed earlier. I'll let the other participants speak for themselves as far as what they described, but I can assure you that I've manufactured nothing.
Last edited:
We both know where we each stand on this, so I'm not really referring to you. There's a trend in these types of threads to turn simple (and optional) requests by SPs into some overblown attack on our privacy when the power imbalance is almost always in the client's favour. Mitigating risk for clients tends to have an equal and opposite increase in risk for providers. The more random, sketchy, anonymous, dodgy a client is, the more risk that holds for a provider, esp if they're truly independent. Just making sure we pump the brakes on saying how outlandish asking for ID or a deposit is. I think it's wild that there are providers NOT asking for it tbh (indies obv), but I'm not going to denigrate those that don't. Like us they all have a risk level they have to accept, sometimes bc they have no other choice.
Decide to or don't, there's risks either way and you can never get that risk to zero unless you don't participate at all. Everything else is just finding what amount of risk (perceived or otherwise) you're comfortable with.
Actually yes there is.
A simple no.
Everybody is free to do as they please.
SP are free to ask for whatever makes them feel safe and comfortable and clients are free to provide only what they feel are safe and comfortable.
If they are not in agreement then it is time to move on it is really that simple.
I really don’t care what other people think or what they do I know what I am comfortable with and what I will and won’t provide.
You are always responsible for your actions.
Also, so many awesome providers require some sort of screening that is non-negotiable, so while there are "lots of fish in the sea" by being scared or completely closed off to that minimal level of risk you're denying yourself some absolutely amazing experiences.
So, if you are of the "they'll never get anything from me until the deed is done" camp, cool. Just understand that means a certain segment of this industry is off-limits to you and accept that.
So, if you are of the "they'll never get anything from me until the deed is done" camp, cool. Just understand that means a certain segment of this industry is off-limits to you and accept that.
What I meant here is that even if clients 'put their foot down' and stopped providing it en masse, it wouldn't change the market where they would just stop asking for it. You'd just have a bunch less beauties in the industry.
Otherwise I agree with the rest here.
Oh please lol.
This profession is the oldest there is and will be around as long as men have dicks and women like nice things they can’t afford.
There are always enough gorgeous ones to be found as long as you have the prime ingredient $$$$.
I don’t want to change the market nor am I bothered by them asking for whatever they feel is necessary for their safety , it is their life their business and their body.and their decision.
My limit is a reference from another provider or if that doesn’t work another way to do it is to have a provider you know well set up a duo with the one you want to see. Problem solved, , yeah it may cost a bit more but just proves my point that $$$ is a problem solver lol.
ok, so there's two things here. You're zooming in on SP screening requests and ignoring the rest of the stuff, but you're talking as if that's the only issue of consequence. It's not, but as I said before people can make their own choices on any aspect of all the things we've discussed here. Screening is just one of them. I will not gainsay any choice that anybody makes with all the info in hand, no matter how stupid I may believe that decision to be. Darwin awards are full of people who knowingly make stupid decisions. The second thing is that you're zoning in again on a relatively small segment of the SP population, and saying these people are known and reliable and should be asking for this stuff. Fair enough. What about the vastly larger number of SPs who aren't known, and reliable, with good reputations from MERB of the agencies? You said earlier in the thread that you're new to this stuff, and you've also said that you limit yourself to a small segment of providers. Do you think that it's fair to project the same level of trust to SPs who don't come with these sterling credentials? When somebody from LL asks for ID and a deposit will you run and give it to them? So, the default response here is that "Hey, I only want to play in this nice clean fountain with these pretty blue flowers" and so none of this applies to me. You can take my word for it (or not) that as you play for longer that you're going to want to spread your wings a bit and do things that are less restrictive and get out into the larger pond where the really fun stuff is. For the other people that are already there they need to be able to make informed decisions about this stuff.
I'm always re-reading what I typed to make sure I said what I said when you reply bc it seems like you're reading 85% of what I say and filling in the blanks with something to be contrarian about.
We are in total agreement: There will always be SW.
It's quite over-simplifying to say it's just for nice things ... Most of the times it's to make a living. And sometimes to have business you might lower your screening requirements. This is maybe where you can find the other fish in the sea ...
Again, we are in agreement. As I have said multiple times: Decide what you're comfortable with and what you're not and that will determine who you can/can't see. We both mitigate risk in our own way, there is no wrong/right way to do it. However, if you actually practice what you preach and NEVER screen/pay deposits you can't see the ladies I do (or play in the same fountain or whatever), whereas I can see everyone you can, if I choose to accept more risk (or employ your strategies). That's all I'm saying.
Your info is good and I appreciate it. I know what to do if I want to minimize my risk further.
lol. I see you didn't read the whole thread. I'll refer you back to post #48. I can see any of the girls you see but I choose not to, because the experience is so much less than I have now. You also cannot see any of the girls I see, because I have built my own personal circle of ladies outside of the conventional system. As a consequence I don't do screening, I don't do deposits, my sessions are not timed and measured by the hour, and they almost all have social time components unless either or both of us is rushed to do something, and I pay a fraction of the price that you do, which is set, no matter how much time we end up spending together in companionship and sex. There's also no a-la-carte service, no acronyms, no nothing except whatever natural restrictions they would have with anyone. No alarms, no shower calls, no waiting drivers, no hotels, no incalls, and on and on and on. You get the picture. I can do this stuff because I have been around the block and because I have learned about what does and doesn't work, and also, what's safe, and so could build something for myself.
There's no chance in the world that I would ever go backwards and down into the type of restrictive situation you're in again, with it's limited scope and limited options. I've seen too much of what the rest of the world looks like and what's possible, and to my mind that's what other people should be seeing too, to ever do that. There's more than one game in town if you look for it. I also disagree that there's no right or wrong way to mitigate risk. There is a right way to do things, that varies according to circumstances, and a wrong way to do it. Where I agree with you is that everybody is free to choose their own way, regardless. Most of the time it will work out regardless. When it doesn't then I just add that person to the always growing list of people I know to whom something bad has happened and with whom I'll share a beer and commiserate when they need someone to unload on. Believe me when I tell you that I've done that a lot of times already. I hope I never have to do that with you, and that if we ever share a beer together it'll be for the fun of it and nothing else.
You are simple minded if you think women do this only because they like nice things. If by nice things you mean ‘not sleeping on a park bench’ then sure…
A lot of people are in it because they can’t keel a regular job but don’t meet the requirements for welfare cheques
lmao then what are you guys mad about if you don’t even want to see the women that ask for screenings in the first place?
Why are you bothered that they ask for screening if you had no intention to see them because you already have found les perles rares
Similar threads
