Reading through the boards I've noticed that there are a number of people having difficulty with screening.  In a some cases, screeners/bookers were not even returning calls.  So trying to figure out root cause...I thought of the following.

Bookers seem to be unwilling to accept any other sort of verification other than references.  Granted that need for safety is relevant but aren't there other forms of verification that could be accepted? TER reviews, work phone, etc. If accepting references only is purely for safety reasons, it seems a bit excessive.  Turns into the chicken and the egg type deal.  Need a reference to see provider....need to see provider to get a reference.

So here's one theory ...K-girls are not in this for the long term and are trying to maximize their cash inflow for a short period of time.  If enough K-girl/screeners  are like minded they could induce hobbyist to have more frequent visits.  Not necessarily with the same provider but just more frequent provider visits.  So generally mutually beneficial for K-girl/screeners as a whole.  By only accepting references, hobbyist would be forced to maintain a frequency of provider visits such that bookers can serve as valid references without forgetting the hobbyist.  A little like the squeezing the 80/20 group to provide cash more frequently.  If 20% of your customers are providing 80% of your cash...why not focus on getting cash faster from the 20% of customers that can be pushed into frequent hobbying behavior instead of focusing on the remaining 80% of customers that may have random patterns of hobbying.  When cashflow slows down...loosen the screening restrictions for a short period of time to refresh the 20%.  Almost like artificially inflating demand.

Maybe one of the more outlandish theories but if its true...kudos to Korean women's business thinking and organization.  Then again this is probably the beer talking.

So what's you theory?

I understand your complaint. Yes, maybe the bookers are very excessive on there screening.
But, they do this for the kgirl's security and the well being of there business. For us too!
Yes, I know you say that (kgirl) is not in it for the long run. Trust me the kgirls are not hurting
for business In my own opinion.
Also, how do we know your not Vice for LE agencies trying to get in and break it up?
I don't see any reviews by you either!

I don't think it's so thought out, really.  It's just a matter of 2 things in my opinion:

Client base:  There's plenty of client base.  There's probably 10 times more business than reviews posted for girls.  I'm saying for every single review there probably 10 clients who don't review a girl.

Safety:  repeat clients and referrals guarantee (well, for the most part) safety for the girls and the business.

And if you're not "in the club", if you're persistent enough you can get it.  I think most guys just give up too easily.

Hmmm, I think you misunderstood my observation.  It wasn't meant as a complaint.  Just noticed that several people have commented on the topic of screening.

As for reviews, my point was that it wouldn't be relevant if there were reviews or not.  Reviews wouldn't be an acceptable form of validation anyway.

Overall, I was just curious if the reason really is saftey.  If so, so be it.  

I just thought my "k-girls are business savy theory" sounded cooler.  Hahaha

Of course it for safety.  If they were trying to maximize profits, they'd let anybody in.  I keep going back because I'm afraid I'll lose my reference?  That thought never factors in.

People who write good reviews, even if the girls don't look like their pics and provide poor service, will get call backs. Guys who write accurate/bad reviews won't.  It's that simple.

it depends on the city.

in LA most agencies are concerned about safety.  

but in other cities they don't do background checks.  agencies there are more about profit.  if the girl gets busted the agency doesn't care.  they just move on and get new girls and new apartments.   the owners have little risk.  since they are offsite and the apartment is leased under the name of morons who accept cash with the hope that the girl will never get busted during the lease term, so if the girl gets busted the agency and owners are protected.

even though the LA agencies follow the same safety tactics as in the other cities, they still do hard checks just because they care more since almost of the owners in LA are former providers.  Other cities are run by men and some not even koreans, which explains the don't give a shit mentality if the girl gets busted.

so stop trying to avoid the screening process.  and just have fun and appreciate the safety precaution that the LA agencies and the sweet girls who put up with our ugly asses offer.

This has nothing to do with K-agencies caring aout the girls. Most young K-girls are brought here from Korea mostly with tourist visas, which allows them to stay 90 days. They work up to 3 months before going back to Korea. if caught, they would be deported and never allowed back in the US. In addition, the agency, if ever busted, would be charged more heavily than the usual promoting prostitution (various international trafficking laws). Chinese girls, on the other hand, are mostly US residents, most with green cards, so they screen less because it is less risk to them and the agency if busted.

not sure where your getting your information but in regards to kgirls thats not the case.

the owners don't have to care but in LA they do cause most owners in LA are former providers.  as i stated if the girl gets busted the owners have low risk of getting caught.

and majority are not imported here.  half are independents or US illiegals who worked in other cities.  

This man is absolutely correct! Which brings me to my point. TER reviews are now a marketing ploy for kgirls once the bookers know your TER handle. I gave a girl a 7/7 review and never got a reference from that Booker again. I've learned the hard way, so then how do we give honest reviews given this fact? It would be great to be able to give a review from an alias handle. Any thoughts on this one staff?

Reference screening is safest because of the obvious uphill battle to get the reference.