provider takes pictures of johns that did her wrong

[juanduh]

Saw this blew my mind she posted on EB today

[snip]

I would not see her based on principal and then my face on a john site

Edited June 14, 2014 by The Oxymoron
not going to promote blackmail/outing

[ash_36]

Who is agreeing to sending their picture as a screening method?

[MAG]

Saw this blew my mind she posted on EB today

[snip]

I would not see her based on principal and then my face on a john site

Wow. Incredible.

Some of her pics also appear to be of her BB'ing.

Stay FAR FAR away from this one, fellas.

Edited June 14, 2014 by The Oxymoron

[Bit Banger]

Some of her pics also appear to be of her BB'ing.

If you read her website, BB is on the menu.

[MAG]

If you read her website, BB is on the menu.

Right you are. I never made it past the first page.

<SHUDDER>

[Guiltypleasures007]

Yeah, where did all the "in the office" pics come from? Weird...

[Boricua7]

She probably requested the John to send a pic for verification purposes. I sent a picture once and was almost scammed.

Never again.

[Guiltypleasures007]

She probably requested the John to send a pic for verification purposes. I sent a picture once and was almost scammed.

Never again.

Lol...no fucking chance!!!!

[Guest]

Totally unacceptable behavior! I am speechless about the pic posting, just plain wrong. As for the BB, to each their own. Her Vagina, her business.

[Audrey Astor]

Damn... that is some straight cray cray shit. People never cease to amaze me....

[Mustang87]

Damn... that is some straight cray cray shit. People never cease to amaze me....

+1 No shows are a part of this business. Anyone who has been doing this on either side for any length of time has experienced it. No excuse for her actions.

[The Oxymoron]

That's why I tell people to protect their real life information.

BSC (bat shit crazy) providers DO exist, and they are not uncommon... whether you want to believe it, or not.

[Ghost_Rider]

[MAG]

BSC (bat shit crazy) providers DO exist, and they are not uncommon

But this is the first time I've seen a hooker openly advertise her bat-shit-craziness

[MrReindeer-9515]

But this is the first time I've seen a hooker openly advertise her bat-shit-craziness

...then you don't visit BP very much.

Seriously though, while this is the first instance I've seen, and it ultimately seems kinda self defeating, I doubt it's the last. It may not be ASP's doing it, but seems totally wired for some of the Blackmail sites currently in vogue.

[juanduh]

The social implications of this would make the john want to hurt the ASP then she would have BSC johns after her

[MrReindeer-9515]

The social implications of this would make the john want to hurt the ASP then she would have BSC johns after her

...assuming she is using pictures of actual wayward clients, not just some stock photos she pulled from somewhere.

[macho]

Really question is why would anybody even pay to sex with [snip]? This is just too bad. Makes me worry about my sins

Edited June 14, 2014 by The Oxymoron
name calling

[pfunk]

Really question is why would anybody even pay to sex with [snip]?

Answer:

I started just because I wasn't getting laid.

Edited June 14, 2014 by The Oxymoron

[EuropeanMonger]

Answer:

LOL, what a dick! Love it!

[Guest]

From:

http://tripadvisor-defamation.com/news-info/17-states-have-criminal-libel-laws-for-internet-defamation/

Colorado

“(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.

(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.”

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)

Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).

People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo., 1991), upheld the Colorado statute to the extent that it criminalized statements made by one private individual about another private individual. The court also held that “actual malice” need not be proved in cases between two private individuals.

Maybe a LEO will see it.

Once it's on the web, it will be there forever.

Why do I have the feeling she will do zero business here.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Johnboy#1
Add

[booblover099]

Agree that the pics should never have been posted. Repeating the offense by copying to this site seems wrong too...

[The Oxymoron]

Agree that the pics should never have been posted. Repeating the offense by copying to this site seems wrong too...

Good point. Link removed and thread closed.