Servius

I agree with Pitbull, especially on BP! No place for rookies. My own view is that women are much more complicated than men, certainly sexually, and probably otherwise. And a typical woman your age is unlikely to know her own sexuality very well. A skilled and older professional can teach you not only about yourself, but about what a women likes. Ask her. This will make you more comfortable with women, generally, and perhaps more skilled sexually than you would otherwise be in a real relationship. And just perhaps, less self-centered in bed than the typical young man. I say do it.

If you tell her and ask for her help, it is the best way to learn. For various reasons, I recommend someone in her late 20s or older, and that you pay a little more for two hours. Schedule it in the morning so you are very likely her first that day. It might well be the best investment you'll make. And don't fall in love, btw.

Just from a pure marketing perspective, I would also suggest reconsidering your views on using text. Lots of men do not like the telephone tag routine, and keep in mind much of the day (with those who work or who are with others) is not available for receiving or making calls for many hobbyists. Text probably simplifies things for many of your prospective clients. Also, it is my experience that many people are not careful readers.

What Bit Banger said. You say nothing unkind. It is unnecessary. Chances are she is not attracted to most clients, either. No reason to hurt anyone's feelings on appearance over so little; we are all human. Move on and don't return--or be more specific in making an appointment there next time. I have always objected to physical appraisals that are hurtful. Do the research carefully and it shouldn't be an issue. When there is false advertising, say so, and leave it at that, i.e., she doesn't resemble her pics. This would preclude many AMPs, of course. But there are plenty of body rub people that can be properly vetted in advance.

It is one thing to make non-specific, general assertions; quite another to make accusations that cannot be adjudicated on a public board, and that by innuendo and implication, impugn the integrity of others not present to defend themselves, and who might be identifiable. If I were the moderator, both of the foregoing posts would be swiftly deleted, notwithstanding their potential entertainment value. And in any event, I suggest take this biz off the public board.

Back in my active days on my board in CA, we had lots of parties, what we called "socials." In the early days we didn't worry as much, but over time we made them increasingly private, by invitation only, and guests were screened and pre-approved. Eventually we formed clubs ... Food clubs, Asian clubs, S&M clubs, geek clubs, sports clubs, dancing, etc. Membership required screening and approval. Many of these parties were a blast, and gave one the opportunity to evaluate people whose internet personalities were sometimes rather different. I imagine you all had poker parties, here, as we did. We had a number of parties at private residences. The rule there was money could not change hands for sex at a party, but consensual activity could and did occur. Mostly it was just ordinary, good fun, and hookups for monetary consideration would occur later and elsewhere after people got to know one another. It was not a perfect way to screen, for either party, but better than mere text. Nikki, I am glad you didn't join. That is reprehensible behavior. A provider who would ask for or require personal info on another's client should be identified, reported, blackballed and denounced as unsafe. A hobbyist who discloses private info he knows about a provider should be treated similarly. Just as one would use dicretion at a real life party, one should also at a hobby party, only more so. I managed to have fun whilst keeping my personal life to myself unless I knew the person very well. As a bit of an extravert, I very much enjoyed socials, and making male and female friends. Some of my best friends in real life were made in the hobby nearly 15 years ago. My closest friend whom I trust more than anyone in the world is a retired provider I met many years ago. So, yeah, good to have good friends, and I would't give much weight, myself, to just friends on a board network signified by an avatar.

Yes, I mean chosen freely. Without untoward coercian. One should be able to trade to satisfy an interest.

Skepticism is healthy, and one ought to keep confirmation theory in the back of one's mind in examining any study. Or for that matter any anecdote used to justify one's prejudice. My simple view is one's own body is the original and most inviolable property right, and what one does with it is one's business to the extent it is a rational, free, adult choice, and that it does not harm another.

I know you're not, and I agree. There are variations and shades of gray on what constitutes pimping. I think the issue of abuse, be it physical, mental, or financial ... or some combination thereof ... is the operative moral condition that one must examine in assessing any of its multifarious forms. You said as much. However, there is a large body of academic and anecdotal evidence to suggest there is substantial abuse arising from the sex trade. The fact is that many, perhaps most hobbyists will be unaware of what really occurs behind the scenes, and there is a concomitant tendency to rationalize ignorance as innocence in the pursuit of personal gratification. I myself preferred to look for true independents to the extent that I could identify them, so as to not contribute to abuse, that is, if the possibility existed, about which I would likely be unaware. Could I be certain? Not always. There are some clues as to whether or not someone is pimped, and most experienced hobbyists know them. That a provider says she is independent is fairly worthless in the absence of other information. The internet, despite its several safety deficiencies, has happily enabled many women to cut out or mitigate the more egregious forms of the middle man. Despite the technical legal similarities that obtain, I would not categorize some agencies or schedulers or board managers in quite the same way as the streetwalker's middleman, or the AMP's mamma san or the common BP pimp.

They are referring to pimped streetwalkers, based on Sudhir Venkatesh's work, the Columbia sociologist accused by others of credulity, sloppy scholarship, and even ethics violations ... but nonetheless Levitt and Dubner in Freakonomics make the plausible claim that many streetwalkers prefer to work with pimps because they bring in better clients (resulting in higher income even after the pimp's 25% cut). This is quite different from the internet-age independent. What is more, pimped women have many more encounters with johns than the average independent in the course of a day. When one considers the attendant drug abuse, violence, and sheer physical toll and hence the limited occupational lifetime earnings expectancy, I doubt one could make a good case (not that anyone here has) for being pimped. A study out of Toledo (pre-internet board explosion) on pimping makes interesting reading if you can locate it: Pimp Controlled Prostitution by Williamson and Tolar.

Absolutely! And I hope you have no more bad experiences. I think most guys and gals are decent. We are all flawed. But not altogether hopeless. And the few truly corrupt men and women make it bad for everyone. Which is why vigilence is required; trust, but verify, as the Gipper said. Don't let the few make you cynical, though. Some healthy skepticism is always prudent in this endeavor, without regard to one's sex. The only way to avoid the risk associated with the hobby is to leave the hobby. No fun in that, though! One seeks to make the risks tractable; eliminating them is not possible.

Well, I doubt if we look at the violence in the world that women quite measure up to men in terms of relative danger! As for the hobby, I disagree. As a moderator in a prior life I bounced about equally. I have known many men who lie, and suspect they are just as capable, too. There is research in this but I am too lazy to look it up. . And frankly, when it comes to physical safety I think women are more vulnerable on the basis of a great deal of evidence. As I said in another thread, reviews are fairly meaningless in terms of measuring anything other than a few things, and certainly not integrity. I discourage anyone from judging integrity based on mere text. I am completely unimpressed by popularity or reputation based on reviews, number of posts, etc. i am impressed by deeds, not words ... acts, not mere beliefs or assertions.

Nikki, short answer. This is why I said "credible." Not all sources are credible. I have been around a lot longer than you and have witnessed all you state and more. But there are credible sources. Cock blockers and perfidious people? Of course. Risk free? Of course not. It takes research and time and the willingness to pass up the Franklin for safety. References, credible ones, are still better than any alternative in the absence of personal bedroom interaction. Which is not to say risk free, as I have said repeatedly. I note you recommend p411. That is primarily for reference work. One of several tools a provider ought to employ. I can assure you from empirical evidence, the BP and erstwhile Craigslist women who often enough do not use references (mostly managed, of course) experience much more harm than those who do. And for the lady who said women are more evil than men, well, I doubt that. I suspect it is distributed rather similarly. Which does not mean our individual experiences are the same, and, of course, said experiences color our outlook and we tend to extraoplate from them. Sometimes erroneously. It is true that in a competitive market environment ... in this case providing consisting mostly of women ... that it might appear that way, but that doesn't mean buyers are any less corrupt or corruptible. The men are not competing in quite the same way (which is not to say there is none, but it is rather different). I suspect a gay male hobby environment would produce a similar amount of scurrilous behavior amongst the providers. In any case, of one thing I am certain: men have been much more destructive, historically.

Less probable, to be sure, but perhaps not least concerning if it is your body. But I agree, the more likely untoward act is discovering one's identity, which is very easy to do, as I said in my original posting. Best bet, do not invite strangers to your home. I want to add something. Hobbyists and providers, alike, overstate the value of mutually assured destruction with personal information. As I said here and on another thread, personal info can be manufactured. I am amused sometimes by those who apparently think LE is unaware of this. Even bogus workplace info. Or those who imagine that internet and text and voice communication are always trustworthy. Even okays without elaboration can and have been misleading. But most importantly, as it relates to a lady's personal safety, do not think for a minute that deranged people think rationally as you might, notwithstanding the info you possess; even temporary derangement arising from jealousy, revenge, or such. And some simply have comparatively little to lose. References by credible sources are paramount.

Ha! Good point. Yes, but the stats would suggest that option is seldom employed. Regretably so. Several of my friends always had a chemical spray nearby. Not just for me, I hope! But seriously, I am afraid those forms of defense might not be as effective when caught off guard. Best to use preventive measures in the first instance, I think. Nice backups though.