So I called The Bella Donna this morning when I saw that the lovely Rebekah was staying in town for another week. When I asked to make an appointment, the nice lady on the other end asked if I was a first-time client, and when I said yes, I was told that Rebekah does not see first-time clients.

This is the second time I've called TBD to see one of their visiting ladies, and the second time I've been told it won't happen. The service rep explained that this was the policy of TBD, not the companion.

While I understand the role of self preservation in these types of arrangements, it's a bit like the old whine, "I can't get a job without experience and I can't get experience without a job".

Thankfully a certain agency out of Miami has always accepted my business, as has an independent of stellar reviews. I am always a multi-hour appointment, arrive with assorted gifts, and strive to be a complete gentleman.

While the nice woman at TBD quickly mentioned several ladies who would accept a first-time client, I just wasn't interested. I'm sure they are very nice ladies, but my heart (let's go with heart) was set on Rebekah. I don't know if it's a case of playing the 'JV squad' before you can play the 'Varsity'.

Did I give up too easily on seeing Rebekah? Is there a super-secret code word that tells the agency 'Hey, I'm okay'. I was hoping to treat myself this week.

You are a first time client. The agency doesn't set up first time clients with new ladies. They are not the only agency that does this by the way.

It's a policy that helps the ladies feel safer. For the record, some ladies that have been with TBD for even longer periods will not always see first time clients either. I know it's a drag to not be able to see the lady you had in mind but TBD puts the safety and security of it's ladies above all else-as does any good agency. That is as it should be.

A Long Island NY agency had a policy similar to what you describe. I tried to book an appointment with their top reviewed girl, and was asked, "have you used our agency before"? I replied,  "No, but I'm a gentleman, a very well known hobbyist with dozens of reviews, dozens of references, and am a member of one of the top verification services".

I was informed that, "That's great, but you have to see one of our 'lesser' girls FIRST before you see our top girl because you are an agency NEWBIE"!!! We don't let her see 1st timers!"

WHAT  THE FUCK ????

Colorful bastard that I am, I told them I didn't want their fucking "ground chuck", and if I couldn't have their "Prime Filet Mignon", they'd NEVER do business with me, and I'd see to it none of my friends ever did business with them either! I was SO put off by the whole experience that to this very day, I tell ANYONE who asks me to avoid the agency like the plague 4 years later.

Moral of the story-- be careful who you fuck with! & if guys are treated shabbily, they won't EVER forget it.  

Your post struck a raw nerve, and personal pet peeve with me !  

BTW, my post is not a slam on TBD !  If they DO have a policy like the agency I dealt with in LI, I'd advise changing it however.

Happy Hobbying to all !

Fuzzy









-- Modified on 10/28/2008 6:51:05 PM

In a case like what you just described fuzzy I would have been pretty pissed as well.

What we are talking about with TBD and at least one other agency that I know of in Boston however is not about the caliber of woman available, we are talking about new girls seeing new customers. This is a safety issue and nothing more.

You're telling me a girl that is not "NEW" (a veteran provider), is SAFER with a 1st time psycho client than a "new girl"???

If the new client is a nut/psycho/disturbed Mr.Robinson etc. it makes NO difference whether he sees a veteran, or a new girl. EITHER girl is in danger from such a client. Proper screening takes care of that crap.

Agencies that are using that logic, and denying clients access based on that are dismally failing in the screening process, or have NO confidence in their screeners! That's a lame excuse with no basis in logic. It's a reprehensible agency practice.

If this practice was in place for an Indy provider, she'd NEVER see a client on tour.

Again, this is not a slam on TBD.







-- Modified on 10/28/2008 7:34:14 PM

Another negative experience about TBD is that
they get PO'd if you give an honest review. Was
told that my review hurt a lady's business but
who is the paying client here? Can't recommend them.

Its about OUR Safety -
In the longrun.. OUR safety is YOURS too -

Be happy an agency is safe and safeguarding their girls -

Thank you Fuzzy.....   That hit a raw nerve with me as well.   Some of us out here have similar stories. That is why I don't bother to call TBD any more, because I had the same experience.  And yes I tell my friends as well

I am a history nut and the analogy that occurs to me from this thread is from the Band Of Brothers TV series, the episode where the brand-new West Point lieutenant is sent out on the patrol but the actual combat leadership responsibility is assigned to the veteran sargeant; the point being that the new guys need seasoning and experience before they are given responsibility on the front lines.
   As in The Band of Brothers, sending the second lieutants (the new girls) to charge the machine-gun nest (i.e., deal with relatively unknown new clients) is probably unwise. The experienced girl (the sargeant) is probably better equipped to deal with a wierdo new client (a machine gun nest) than a new girl.
    But Fuzzy is absolutely correct in pointing out that neither a rookie or a veteran is equipped to deal with a psychopath client, the equivalent of a King Tiger German tank in WWII. On the other hand these are extremely rare situations (the Germans only built 500 King Tigers) and an agency (or aireal surveillance) is surely going to spot the most obvious problems. In the final analysis, somebody has to deal with the machine gun nest, somebody has to deal with the new clients; so do you have the new girls do it because they need to gain experience or do you have the veterans deal with it because they are less likely to get shot? I would defer to the agency's judgement, probably go with the veterans, as there is no single right answer in every circumstance.

if I was to work for an agency I would be very upset if when a Gentleman requested to see me they sent him to someone else. Thats taking business away from one girl and giving it to another, who he was not interested in seeing. I am sure if it was her first week or so but if she's not brand spanking new, and not super fragile, she should be able to handle the average guy which most men are,fun sweet nice horny guys, simple as that. And if she is fragile this business is not where she should be.
It's good to know the agencies are looking out for a ladies, but is it really all about that? I don't know, but I do know if I were there I would be pissed if I was losing business due to their policy.

You and I everybody with any experience in the hobby knows that agencies do not screen the way independents do.  They simply can't.  Guys call and they want to see a girl in an hour, not after a three day screening wait! If you don't understand that a girl who has seen a few dozen or a few hundred guys over a period of months or years would better know how to handle a potential problem and be more comfortable with who is waiting behind the door in general than a girl who started last week I guess we have nothing to talk about.

I realize that you are not slamming TBD but you are also ignoring the first responsibility of any woman who works in this business-either for herself or for an agency-To keep herself safe.

If agencies are NOT doing proper, and THOROUGH screening, they put ALL their girls and the Agency itself at risk. Your argument is lame, and so is any agency's argument that uses that logic.

Whether dealing with a psycho client, or a potential LE client, it's the AGENCIES' total responsibility to SCREEN out potential problems! (This is one of the MAIN reasons girls work for agencies). They trade 40% of their income for protection, and marketing. An agency that can't assure ALL their girls that their screening is thorough is shirking it's duties! In a nutshell, they are negligent.

The notion that a girl with a year experience is better able to handle LE, or a psycho is ludicrous, and laughable. If the issue is "SAFETY", as the agency claims, WHY let ANY of their girls see a guy they can't verify as OK, sane, and not a cop?  The argument is tainted, flawed, and bullshit.

If agencies'  cant' properly screen out psychos, scumbags, and LE, in a few hours time, then they shouldn't book the client with  ANY of their girls. End of story.

The absurd notion that a 105lb "veteran" spinner is safer from a psycho than a 175 lb BBW "newbie" girl is laughable as well. (One of the few times it pays to be heavy -LMFAO-).

BTW, I would boycott any agency that practiced these  discriminatory practices. I'd also be nervous about ANY agency that had zero confidence in it's ability to safely screen all guys. Screening is "Safety 101" in the hobby !  

"I'm Fuzzy, and I stand by this message" !

Happy Hobbying to all!  



-- Modified on 10/29/2008 6:22:37 AM

1.  I have worked primarily independently for the duration of my time in the business (2 years) though I have moonlighted with several agencies with various screening procedures.  These experiences are the basis of my comments.

2.  An agency / service which is established and has a determined set of practices which do not waiver caller to caller must be respected, irrespective of our [the caller or bystanders] assessments of the practicality of those practices.

Potential callers / clients should be more concerned with the agencies which very obviously vary their standards caller to caller depending upon how the wind blows, how busy business is that day or who is answering the phones.

3.  As one who has worked with a service and said:
"I do not want to see anyone new currently"-
my decision was based on the fact that I simply didn't feel like dealing with unknown quantities.

Not the fact that I couldn't "handle" unknown quantities.

Everyone is speaking as though all instances of girls who won't accept new guests with a service are brand new to the industry.
This is ludicrous.  Most traveling providers (I would venture to guess nearly all) are not new to escorting.  They have some experience independently OR with services local to their home/market or previous touring experience.

A service is a service is a service.  10 miles away from home or 1000.  There is nothing new, different, unusual or difficult to navigate about answering a phone, hearing "you have a 1-2p with John Doe," hanging up the phone and conducting session with a check-out at 1:55p.

The only difference that Holly Hobby who is working under a service with this request of "no new guests" is experiencing is a little blip on the phone about who John Doe is and what his tendencies are ("Hon, you're seeing John Doe at 1p-he sees all the girls and they say he's really nice and good looking" or "the girls say he's a prick- kick him out if he gets fresh but I think you can handle it").

She's not necessarily better shielded or guarded from clients with the potential to become psychotic, LE or other undesirables.

4.  Though I respect TBD's policy from afar because it has been mentioned here several times in recent months and from where I sit it demonstrates CONSISTENCY I think that the business which does not allow for subtle, private exceptions to it's rules will lose worthwhile clients and leave a bitter taste in their mouths (as at least three people have expressed above).

You're on the phone with John Doe screening.  He's obviously excited about participating in your service.  He says that he is a gentleman hobbyist who participates often and has stellar references, a positive online hobby history and is willing to provide all of the information which would make you (the screener), the owner AND the entertainer happy.

If I were screening callers I would accept all of the information and review it.  If it checked out as perfectly as he suggested it would I would call the provider and lay it down for her. If she were down with an exception to the policy I would then call the owner.

I just can't see how this appointment request  (and those like it)couldn't have been a home run.

As Fuzzy said above, the agency which is relying on other girls to effectively screen guests (even if simply behaviorally) is being negligent during the screening process.  An agency which is commanding a 40% fee should be able to GUARANTEE that its screening procedures are so rigorous that EVERY guest accepted is the real deal and has their total confidence.

Anything less is negligence.

My suggestion to the agency is this:
Maintain policy publicly for the sake of uniformity, consistency, comfort and preservation of current clientele

BUT

Work smarter - not harder.

-- Modified on 10/29/2008 11:15:41 AM

is that just because a girl is new with the agency doesn't mean she's new to the business yet the agency treats it as such, and new clients can't see them, I've been turned down as well.  Good thing there's plenty of talent to go around elsewhere in the State.

Reality is what it is.  If you want to go around thinking that it is possible to be One hundred percent sure that every guy, no matter how much you screen him, is going to be fine when he walks through the door then you are living in a dream world.  You can never be absolutely certain. Indie's can't and agencies can't.

I'd love to live in a world where every guy treated every lady the way you do, I do, or the majority of good men do but it just isn't that way out there and honestly, LE is the least of their worries. Just as we all have the right to see who we want and not spend our money where we choose not to a woman has the right to see or not see clients based on whatever criteria makes her feel safe. Agency or otherwise.

I saw someone from TBD a year or so ago, but because the girl no longer works with them I have to see one of their regular girls (none of whom I have interest in) before I get to see a visitor. No interest in references or the like. I think it is a little tough and they probably lose some good customers this way.

It is surprising you have not weighed in on this

First you said it was a "Safety issue", and Veteran girls are better equipped to deal with "new clients". That argument was Bullshit !

Now, you're using a new argument saying it's an "agencies' choice" who a new clients sees.  OK, I'll buy that--- BUT, that's a shitty practice, and MY CHOICE would be to boycott an agency with that employed that practice.  If I have references, and am verifiable, I'm NOT going to have an agency tell me I have to see their least desirable girls, or no one at all.  FUCK THAT !

Under your scenario, I'd never use the agency again, and tell everyone I knew to avoid them!

Boston Guy, no offense, but you are defending the indefensible. You come across as a white knight for lame business practices!  

But all I'm doing is defending what is actually happening, and agreeing with it. You can see who you like or use who you like. You can also recommend who you like and boycott who you like. That doesn't change the fact that agencies will continue to do business as they see fit.

My argument hasn't changed one iota Fuzzy. It started out defending the practice of agencies doing whatever they fell they must to keep their ladies safe. I stand behind that.

You can call me wrong one more time if you like, I'm done here...before the "shutthefuckupalwaysright" and post count Nazis come along.

BTW, I take offense at nothing you said here. I even agree with some of it, not most of it obviosly....
It's just a difference of opinion dude...

-- Modified on 10/30/2008 5:15:43 AM

I also have this policy in place and here is why.

Ladies want to feel comfortable and safe. They are the ones who decided if they want to see "untested" clients or not. Most do not.

When I tell a girl she has an appointment they expect me to give them a little heads up on what they like etc. I can't do that with someone who has never used the service before.

All the screening in the world is not going to let you know if he is going to unclean, rude, forceful, nasty or just a plain jerk.

Whether or not you choose to believe it there are some girls who can handle a weirdo better than others. They have what we like to call Spydey Ho sense. They can spot something not right the second a guy walks in. I trust someone like Penny to see a new guy, she is experienced and can handle a weirdo or nasty guy. She can then tell me what he is like and if he is ok to send to a new girl.

I have this policy stated right on my website on the verification form. It is also in the girls bio if they see first time clients.

I do however sometimes make exceptions. If a new client has references from a girl or service I trust and know very well, like for example Ally or Sonny I will ask the girl if she would like to see him. I explain that he is new but, he has been well checked out and has excellent references. It is then her choice, usually they trust my judgement and allow it. Some ladies however refuse to see anybody new regardless of how well they are screened. I respect their wishes and explain that to the client.

On another note just last week I had a gentleman fill out my verification form. He left everything blank except for his TER handle and the name of another provider he has seen. In the notes he said to call her she will know him by his TER handle. What the idiot did not know was that I also know the person who really owns that TER handle and this guy was not him.  A less experienced provider or service might have let this guy through.

In closing, my job is to keep the ladies safe and respect their wishes. I will continue to do that to the best of my abilities and if that means a new client can't see the girl he wishes to, so be it.

Jill

-- Modified on 10/29/2008 7:40:52 AM

You, and i have been friends, and you run a respected agency.

I think the fact that you make exceptions for guys with great references etc is commendable. I also think it's smart business to post your policies up front as you do. That way, guys aren't likely to have a bitter feeling about the agency.

I disagree that a problem client (rough, abusive etc.) is better off with ANY girl. (I know you had an exception with Mr. Robinson -lol).

It is also rare in the biz that a girl gets a "heads up" on what a client likes or is like, unless he's a VERY regular client.

I stand by my posts however.

Happy Hobbying to all!

-- Modified on 10/30/2008 7:36:58 AM