Rates & Screening

[Forum mod]

Gents, screening and rates are not going to be discussed. You follow her screening rules and pay her rate, or you see someone else. Especially comments about recent changes or comments about if is she worth it.

There are providers at every price point. you can spend 1500 in an hour, or 250. You can say something like - at her rate, I expected GFE or PSE service, but didn't get X, Y Z. You didn't mention a number, you focused on service. You cannot say, she didn't even kiss me, I paid her 1000. That's a complaint about her rate. If a thread is borderline, mods will use their judgement, and even compare notes before it's removed.

If it's removed, don't bother reposting it, complaining about it in a new thread or otherwise rehashing the situation, it will end up with you in Perbatory taking a break from the board. If you cannot quell your curiosity, PM a mod and they will tell you what happened to it.

Lastly, if you have not seen the lady at all, stay the hell out of the thread, you don't even get to have an opinion about her looks, or business model if you have not interacted with her. This in particular is getting way out of hand. We do not care if you think she's an IG model or a nasty nag, especially when considering her rates, if you haven't seen her. Body shaming, rude and insulting comments are not called for. If this kind of stuff keeps up, enforcement of the rules will accelerate for those guys who cannot be civil and polite. Want to be a locker room pig or clown? Do it elsewhere.

 

[Forum mod]

To answer some questions coming from PMs.

You can certainly say that while the service was adequate, the value for money paid was not to your liking. You cannot say, I paid 1000, she should have rimmed me for an hour.

 

[Bang4thebuck]

It seems to me that screening methods are the most contentious issue on this forum. People have vastly different opinions on their effectiveness. Rates are clear-cut, but screening is more nuanced. It’s a issue that involves a challenging balance between security vs privacy.

If someone is unhappy with the screening process of an SP, they should not complain about it, they should simply consider exploring one of the many other options available. I agree with you. But banning discussion of this topic outright feels somewhat drastic, given that it’s a constant recurring issue.

And banning discussion on review threads for people who haven’t seen the SP - this is an unrealistic measure. While I love the idea of review threads where only clients who have seen the SP can comment - implementing it within this forum's setup will likely keep you very busy - if not impossible to achieve.

Screening vs privacy is HUGE. A lot of men see working girls for that discretion and privacy, and don't want to risk it. I don't do screening, my privacy is paramount, so I don't reach out to girls who screen. I understand why they screen, because safety is of course a major concern for any working girl. So balancing these competing, but also very important, interests is a discussion worth having openly, in my opinion.

 

[SSL Management]

It is not always an option, however if references are an option, and you can provide a reference from two well known Service Providers, I don't see where that invades your privacy.

You could always try to be polite and respectful, offer to provide references, explaining your privacy concerns and you never know what might happen.

Screening was very limited even 5 years ago, but then the ASSHOLES showed up, leaving the ladies no choice. Complaining about rates, negotiating rates, pushing boundaries, not showing up, using reviews as a weapon...... The landscape has changed dramatically over the past few years. The world is not the same as it was a few years ago and neither is the Sex Biz.

I understand the need for privacy, not making light of that. But too much BITCHING about screening has occurred. As mentioned, don't chastise the ladies the screen. They have to consider having their time wasted and safety concerns.

I disagree with this statement. " But banning discussion of this topic outright feels somewhat drastic, given that it’s a constant recurring issue."

It would not be a "constant recurring issue" if perbites would quit whining! If you do not want to go through the screening process, move on and shut up!

 

[westwoody]

It would not be a "constant recurring issue" if perbites would quit whining! If you do not want to go through the screening process, move on and shut up!

“I’m not complaining”….and then they start complaining LOL

 

[masterpoonhunter]

I think we all get it that screening is a real deal for many providers and without it they put a hard stop on the particular discussion.
Speaking for myself maybe others as well, I politely decline screening just as I politely decline eTransfering. My privacy is paramount for me and that is my hard stop.
As noted in this thread as I just do not go into a screening process, I just move on, no further discussion, no complaints, just move on.

 

[Pornholio]

My view on screening is the same as cctv in the cities or ID being photographed at the bar. If I'm not going to do anything stupid, then my ID does not come into play. But if I'm going to abuse a provider, or do something stupid I can expect a police report filed with my name .

 

[rizzgod]

I believe that complaining or whining about screening isn't particularly classy or constructive.
However, I believe that expressing opposition to certain screening practices in a respectful manner can be valuable and beneficial for both providers and clients.

I can think of numerous instances where independent providers and agencies initially implemented strict screening processes, only to later ease those criteria and eliminate the more invasive types of screening.
It’s impossible to quantify whether this change was driven by clients expressing their dissatisfaction with the screening practices or a decline in business resulting from the strict protocols. However, I believe it's reasonable to assume that both factors played a role.

I believe it’s also important to consider the client’s perspective. While I understand that this industry poses significantly more danger risks for providers than for clients, there are still numerous safety and risk-related reasons why clients may be hesitant to share their information with someone who is essentially a stranger. I believe there are potential reasons why clients should hesitate to share personal information, such as their ID and phone number, that they may not yet be aware of or have considered.
If we are unable to address and discuss these risks, some clients may not recognize their missteps until it’s too late,
As a result, they have made themselves vulnerable to doxxing, identity theft, robbery, assault, lawsuits, public shaming, threats, extortion, and more (I know its rare, but it happens).
Additionally, some of us have more at stake than others, particularly those with higher net worths or with higher social standings.

I believe it is wise for providers to understand the risks they face if they have access to sensitive client information and do not handle it responsibly. If such information falls into the wrong hands due to negligence, they could find themselves facing serious legal consequences

Additionally, as @SSL Management mentioned, don’t hesitate to respectfully inquire about alternative screening methods, many providers are open, understanding, and accommodating.

I highly recommend that clients refrain from sending their ID to a provider or using their real phone number that could be linked to their identity, work, or social media accounts. Instead, consider using a burner phone, a text app, or a separate email. Never send them your ID, even if you blank out your information. I adhere to these guidelines myself and can't recall a provider I wanted to see who I was unable to see.

 

[YaletownFuckboi]

My view on screening is the same as cctv in the cities or ID being photographed at the bar

Yes, but for those kinds of examples, there are mechanisms in place meant to safeguard your privacy and information.
There are also options for recourse available if that information is used against you maliciously or is improperly managed.
Additionally, it's not against the law to walk down the street or visit a bar.

What happens if the provider’s boyfriend (and yes, many of them do have boyfriends) decides to use the information on your ID to rob you? Or if the provider has a meltdown (which we've seen happen before) and attempts to extort or threaten you with your private information?

 

[Pornholio]

Yes, but for those kinds of examples, there are mechanisms in place meant to safeguard your privacy and information.
There are also options for recourse available if that information is used against you maliciously or is improperly managed.
Additionally, it's not against the law to walk down the street or visit a bar.

What happens if the provider’s boyfriend (and yes, many of them do have boyfriends) decides to use the information on your ID to rob you? Or if the provider has a meltdown (which we've seen happen before) and attempts to extort or threaten you with your private information?

All very valid points. That's why the vetting goes two ways. Not liked I'm a high profile member of society that they would want to extort, but I get the point for others. Those who are comfortable with the screening will do it, those who are not will go elsewhere.

 

[happyinvan]

I believe it’s also important to consider the client’s perspective. While I understand that this industry poses significantly more danger risks for providers than for clients, there are still numerous safety and risk-related reasons why clients may be hesitant to share their information with someone who is essentially a stranger. I believe there are potential reasons why clients should hesitate to share personal information, such as their ID and phone number, that they may not yet be aware of or have considered.
If we are unable to address and discuss these risks, some clients may not recognize their missteps until it’s too late,
As a result, they have made themselves vulnerable to doxxing, identity theft, robbery, assault, lawsuits, public shaming, threats, extortion, and more (I know its rare, but it happens).
Additionally, some of us have more at stake than others, particularly those with higher net worths or with higher social standings.

I believe it is wise for providers to understand the risks they face if they have access to sensitive client information and do not handle it responsibly. If such information falls into the wrong hands due to negligence, they could find themselves facing serious legal consequences

Additionally, as @SSL Management mentioned, don’t hesitate to respectfully inquire about alternative screening methods, many providers are open, understanding, and accommodating.

I highly recommend that clients refrain from sending their ID to a provider or using their real phone number that could be linked to their identity, work, or social media accounts. Instead, consider using a burner phone, a text app, or a separate email. Never send them your ID, even if you blank out your information. I adhere to these guidelines myself and can't recall a provider I wanted to see who I was unable to see.

100%. These providers (the vast vast majority of them anyway) are not security experts. If large companies can have information they stored compromised, so can providers.

As you mentioned there are also boyfriends and other close people that could have access.

There's also just apathy. I know of one provider who thought her laptop had spyware on it from an ex, and rather than stop using it she continued to do business on it. Even if she chose to get it fixed, now you have a tech looking at her laptop.

I think it's well known how often breaches are from techs fixing laptops or phones. How many providers do you see that have the latest iPhone, how many of them do you think are going to throw it away if it needs a minor repair?

 

[VanCityNewb]

Of course a thread announcing no discussions on screening, would end up having everyone under the sun giving their random opinions on screening processes.

 

[lukom]

If someone is unhappy with the screening process of an SP, they should not complain about it, they should simply consider exploring one of the many other options available. I agree with you. But banning discussion of this topic outright feels somewhat drastic, given that it’s a constant recurring issue.

I agree, it's important to keep discussions open on the matter. People on either side of the subject can learn from eachother and bridge the gap.

Its also one thing to respectfully share your personal reasons why you wont see SPs who require screening, no matter how reputable they may be. Its another to go on this conspiracy theorist tirade about how sex workers are deep down evil who will fuck you over, and anyone who follows their rules is a sucker and a simp. Keep it respectful and be willing to understand the other side. Theres no right or wrong on the matter. It's not like a discussion on if SPs should offer BBFS with PREP and PEP available (for example).

banning discussion on review threads for people who haven’t seen the SP - this is an unrealistic measure. While I love the idea of review threads where only clients who have seen the SP can comment - implementing it within this forum's setup will likely keep you very busy - if not impossible to achieve.

Well sharing your texting experience in maybe how cracked out the SP came off or how rudely they might have reacted to you, or if they threatened you is fair. You might say, "Not going to risk $500 per hour on someone who responds like that." If for example her response to your question on what her restrictions may be, "come and find out!" I can't see a reason to chime in on a provider you haven't seen either, unless sharing information on them from under a previous alias or previous number or quoting from another resource (such as erotic review).

 

[$Mansion]

Of course a thread announcing no discussions on screening, would end up having everyone under the sun giving their random opinions on screening processes.

to be fair I see many well-reasoned, persuasive, and logical arguments supporting the continuation of our discussions on screening, but I have not yet seen a single compelling counterargument presented.

thanks to the moderators for permitting this discussion.

 

[$Mansion]

Body shaming

This is a sincere question: if we come across a provider, who we have seen, and it turns out she is overweight or obese (which was not disclosed or advertised beforehand), what are the appropriate terms we can use to describe her condition? Because overweight and obese are both medical terms, and quite descriptive.

 

[VanCityNewb]

to be fair I see many well-reasoned, persuasive, and logical arguments supporting the continuation of our discussions on screening, but I have not yet seen a single compelling counterargument presented.

thanks to the moderators for permitting this discussion.

The only argument that matters: providers can handle their business however they see fit. I don't think anybody really cares if so and so won't see a provider because they don't like their rates, looks, screening or anything else. I never understand why people feel the need to volunteer that they aren't going to see someone, for whatever reason. If you don't want to, don't go.

But it doesn't provide any useful information and just takes threads off topic - which is for providing information from those who actually have seen the provider in question. It just makes moderation more of a pain in the ass than it needs to be.

 

[MB Mod]

Let’s keep the discussion on topic, random attacks on other posters will get it locked!

 

[80watts]

I've mentioned this before, but I believe PERB has a significant opportunity to establish a new vetting system. While some agencies already accept PERB handles as references, this could be taken a step further by allowing providers to rate clients. This would incentivize clients to be on their best behaviour, knowing they would be rated afterwards. Allowing providers to rate clients would create a more balanced feedback dynamic, reducing the likelihood of clients misusing reviews against providers.

Additionally, a rating system would reduce the reliance on risky screening methods, such as requiring government IDs, which provide little insight into a person's character. As discussed, the risks associated with stolen IDs can be severe. I agree there is a lot of bitching and whining, but it seems out of frustration, rather than pushing boundaries. Many of us who value our privacy want to book with specific providers, but have limited options. If moderators ban all discussions about screening, it will make finding a solution more difficult. I've successfully used references to bypass ID requirements, but I would much prefer a rating system. I would be totally fine having providers rate me. While p411 is the closest option available, it's unfortunate that it still requires ID.

As pointed out in another thread, perb handles can be mis-used by anyone.

As for PERB doing a vetting system, the mods probably won't want the extra work. Any ass can make a online profile, gets a PERB handle, fake reviews and shit; and then the ass gets into the henhouse.

As for SP making review on PERB members, I don't think they have the time or inclination to fill out paperwork on any session.... As in any bureaucracy, as soon as you start filling out paperwork, the taxes soon follow...

 

[Pumped]

This is a sincere question: if we come across a provider, who we have seen, and it turns out she is overweight or obese (which was not disclosed or advertised beforehand), what are the appropriate terms we can use to describe her condition? Because overweight and obese are both medical terms, and quite descriptive.

It can be as simple as "the last time I saw 'xx' I was attracted to her slim figure/level of fitness/great shape -- this time wasn't like that." Or "xx doesn't, physique-wise, match her pictures at this time."

 

[$Mansion]

It can be as simple as "the last time I saw 'xx' I was attracted to her slim figure/level of fitness/great shape -- this time wasn't like that." Or "xx doesn't, physique-wise, match her pictures at this time."

I don't believe that's detailed or descriptive enough to accurately convey what to expect their body to look like.

I'm sincerely inquiring with the moderators whether we can use terms like overweight and obese, as they are medical terms that objectively describe physical appearances and, therefore, shouldn't be considered insulting. Clearly, these terms should be used respectfully.

I think it’s important for potential clients to be aware of what to expect when they see a provider and to have as much information as possible beforehand, especially in regards to looks, as well as service/attitude . That’s really the main point of reviews. Clients' time and money should also be respected, and their consent is crucial, we don’t want to put clients in a position where their consent is compromised.