Client security

[urquell]

I think the angriness here is because your initial question to Rebaynia is a rhetorical question.
Both clients and SP need anonymity for the reasons we know. However your question might have been about the level of anonymity and security needed and if that could be equally the same needed on both side.

It wasn't rhetorical. You also don't need to re-interpret my question. Regardless of the fact that the reasons for the anonymity might be different both clients and SPs have a need for anonymity, and anonymity is today's society takes many of the same forms for everyone.

And the part you don't want to admit a real safty factor for us, if someone does wrong by us we have the right to report them to the cops. RAPE happens, STALKING happens, KIDNAPPING happens, MURDER happens. And whoever is our security needs to know who we were with in the event anything actually happens to us. You providing false information is a direct attack on our safty.

I'm not sure why you'd say I won't admit that safety is an issue. I keep saying it over and over again. I said twice in my last post that SPs are entitled to take precautions and should do so for their safety. I feel like people are willfully choosing to disregard everything I am saying affirming that SPs have a right to protect themselves. I get that. I'm repeating it again here. I also understand what you're saying about knowing clients and why not knowing about them poses a danger to you. It's a slippery slope from the point of view that it leaves one party of the other disadvantaged. Women are safer if the know everything. Men are safer if they don't. The priority here may lie in the perspective. I absolutely understand why you would prioritize that and also understand that your priority is to protect yourself. My priority is to protect myself. I completely get that these are opposing priorities and that they may be difficult to reconcile. It's the same (in a non dangerous way) with deposits. It's a tug of war of whose priorities take precedence. To be absolutely clear I am not equating deposits with issues of personal safety. Safety is obviously more important. It's just another example of push-pull between clients and SPs. BUT, and to be perfectly clear here, STALKING, KIDNAPPING,ROBBERY, ASSAULT, MURDER, DRUGGING and BLACKMAIL happen to clients too. Danger is not the single exclusive province of the SP.

 

[Rebaynia]

It wasn't rhetorical. You also don't need to re-interpret my question. Regardless of the fact that the reasons for the anonymity might be different both clients and SPs have a need for anonymity, and anonymity is today's society takes many of the same forms for everyone.


I'm not sure why you'd say I won't admit that safety is an issue. I keep saying it over and over again. I said twice in my last post that SPs are entitled to take precautions and should do so for their safety. I feel like people are willfully choosing to disregard everything I am saying affirming that SPs have a right to protect themselves. I get that. I'm repeating it again here. I also understand what you're saying about knowing clients and why not knowing about them poses a danger to you. It's a slippery slope from the point of view that it leaves one party of the other disadvantaged. Women are safer if the know everything. Men are safer if they don't. The priority here may lie in the perspective. I absolutely understand why you would prioritize that and also understand that your priority is to protect yourself. My priority is to protect myself. I completely get that these are opposing priorities and that they may be difficult to reconcile. It's the same (in a non dangerous way) with deposits. It's a tug of war of whose priorities take precedence. To be absolutely clear I am not equating deposits with issues of personal safety. Safety is obviously more important. It's just another example of push-pull between clients and SPs. BUT, and to be perfectly clear here, STALKING, KIDNAPPING,ROBBERY, ASSAULT, MURDER, DRUGGING and BLACKMAIL happen to clients too. Danger is not the single exclusive province of the SP.

Really I don't get why I am even stating a point so hard... I tend to try and give those I see their anonymity as well. Preferingbthe booking to be something we both feel good about. I don't ask for information I myself wouldn't share. Except address, I need to know where I am going.
My issue is I read all these steps to avoid even sharing who the client is, are the same ones who give misdirecting information. Address next door to their building, or another apartment number than their own. Refusing to give an apartment number.
Normalizing misinformation makes this an even more dangerous field to be in.
There is protecting yourself, and then there's intentionally misleading another. Protect yourself, don't give information you are not willing to give, but falsified information is another monster designed for people with bad intentions.

 

[urquell]

Really I don't get why I am even stating a point so hard... I tend to try and give those I see their anonymity as well. Preferingbthe booking to be something we both feel good about. I don't ask for information I myself wouldn't share. Except address, I need to know where I am going.
My issue is I read all these steps to avoid even sharing who the client is, are the same ones who give misdirecting information. Address next door to their building, or another apartment number than their own. Refusing to give an apartment number.
Normalizing misinformation makes this an even more dangerous field to be in.
There is protecting yourself, and then there's intentionally misleading another. Protect yourself, don't give information you are not willing to give, but falsified information is another monster designed for people with bad intentions.

OK. but intention is the key here. There is space for both parties to misrepresent, even for benign purposes that are also simultaneously security precautions. Let's pick something simple. A client has a burner phone that he uses to hobby because his SO regularly goes through his normal phone. He is giving you "deceptive" information for reasons that have nothing to do with you and with no ill intent. Does that count? At what level does the deception become dangerous or sketchy? Might be hard to measure. Seems to me like motive is important and probably your gut about people has to come into play more than the action in some instances. It's difficult to gauge using only indirect communication, I grant you.

At best it's all an imperfect system, and it sucks that any of it is necessary at all.

 

[luxurystacy]

I'm not sure why your tone is so angry here, since I'm having a civil discussion here, but let's unpack this:

1) I never said that there weren't dangers to SPs. In fact I understand completely why SPs operate anonymously and as you said I clearly understand the dangers. I encourage the SPs to take precautions to protect themselves.
2) What is different is that you don't seem to understand the dangers to clients, possibly because you don't think of yourself as a danger to them. No, clients are not likely to get raped. They are, however, in danger of being robbed, beaten and robbed, scammed, video'd, photographed and blackmailed. I also know of one case where the SPs job was to keep the client busy and their confederate cleaned out the undefended car, took photos of the plate etc. I personally know several people that have been robbed and I have had minor articles and amounts of cash stolen from me. I personally know one guy who has been beaten and robbed, and I know of several others not anecdotally but through direct conversations with gents while traveling. I know personally one man who was blackmailed for almost 3 years. So, if you're telling me you know what my answers are going to be then you're clearly mistaken. I've belonged to probably someone around 20 boards over the course of my adventures in the hobby. There are hundreds of accounts of men being victims for all the types of interactions I've described, and thousands of minor infractions like deposits disappearing, minor personal articles or amounts of money disappearing, etc. Also, when traveling the loss of personal documents can be potentially devastating and of great personal concern, but yes, I understand that doesn't apply here.

So, why should clients take precautions? You're right. Not so hard to understand. It also doesn't preclude SPs from taking steps to protect themselves too. Everyone deserves to be safe.

Yes these things can happen to men too. But it's miles away from what we are going true. First, it doesn't happen as often to men. Ive been doing this for many years and these situations have happen to me at least 100 time.I dont think you will find a men that was abuse by 100 differents SP. Also, you cant compare the physical force of men vs women. I could never beat a men. Im 5 feet, 100 pounds. Let's be real. And comparing getting robbed/scammed to being beat,rape,life threats....is....yeah not the same at all. I would prefer get rob and scam 100X more than getting rape.

You said that you agree that SP should take precautions for their safety and need to protect themselves; and even if it's not 100% efficient, the only way we have to protect ourself is by screening.
Why do you think laws, policies etc exist? It's to solve and regulate problems; problems that happens enough that a law or policy was made to counter it. SP wouldn't need screening if clients were respectful and good. Same as we wouldn't need laws for murder if peoples wouldn't kill each other. The law for drinking under the influence was a result of many deaths by car accident when the driver had been drinking alcohol. There is always a reason for everything.

 

[urquell]

Yes these things can happen to men too. But it's miles away from what we are going true. First, it doesn't happen as often to men. Ive been doing this for many years and these situations have happen to me at least 100 time.I dont think you will find a men that was abuse by 100 differents SP. Also, you cant compare the physical force of men vs women. I could never beat a men. Im 5 feet, 100 pounds. Let's be real. And comparing getting robbed/scammed to being beat,rape,life threats....is....yeah not the same at all. I would prefer get rob and scam 100X more than getting rape.

You said that you agree that SP should take precautions for their safety and need to protect themselves; and even if it's not 100% efficient, the only way we have to protect ourself is by screening.
Why do you think laws, policies etc exist? It's to solve and regulate problems; problems that happens enough that a law or policy was made to counter it. SP wouldn't need screening if clients were respectful and good. Same as we wouldn't need laws for murder if peoples wouldn't kill each other. The law for drinking under the influence was a result of many deaths by car accident when the driver had been drinking alcohol. There is always a reason for everything.

actually, I wasn't as much thinking about women beating their clients (although that happens too) as about the women's pimps/accomplices doing it. I'm also not just talking about it from a local perspective, but from a global perspective. In a great many places men who beat women get a trip to the hospital long before they get to the airport. Men who get beaten get laughed at.

Still, and once again for the peanut gallery, I'm not trying to equate the dangers women have to deal with with the ones men have to deal with. I've already said that men generally don't have to worry about rape for example. Men have to worry about other stuff. My point is here is that you seem to want to insist on making it a contest and it's not a contest. It's about recognizing that both sides have reasons to want to hide aspects of their identities in order to protect themselves. It is categorically NOT about minimizing the dangers to SPs.