The killings are horrible. Caution needs to be used until the perp is caught. No one disagrees with that. But it is not helpful for anyone to derive a false sense of security from poor rational, or to have a sense of fear from alarmist reactionary thinking.
I don't claim to have the answers, but some things you said don't make sense, or are have no benefit as related to this type of situation. I'll give some information that I know is accurate and up to date, and give some OPINIONS as well. Hopefully there will be discussion on the matter that will be helpful.
Right now the series of killings and crimes that police believe are related have robbery as a common component. One victim was only robbed because her husband cam back to the hotel room during the event. Though not yet determined robbery may be the motive, with the killing to remove the only eye witness.
While "screening" is not reported on in the media, you may be able to assume with a reasonable degree of certainty that the victims were providers that have no screening whatsoever. Why? Because that is common amongst "CL-based providers". [ Let me define that term as I am using it here: a provider that has these characteristics (a) only advertises on CL (b) has no other web presence (C) is using cheap hotel rooms for incall (d) is being pimped or is completely solo and inexperienced. ]
In addition to no screening, the other four characteristics of "CL-based providers" make them seem to be the most vulnerable, and therefore the target that will be most likely chosen by someone intending on committing crimes, like robbery, against providers, as the entire circumstance, appears to offer the greatest opportunity for the perp.
It looks like LE has information about the perp, Based on what is in the media so far, the crime may not be serial killings, but instead killings in a robbery spree. Just at horrible, but an important distinction in understanding the event and, reacting to them, and protecting yourself.
Regarding sociopaths. That term is a phycological term and not a definition of behavior. It has been replaced with the official psychiatric diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (APD)
A 2005 study published in The Journal of Clinical Pyschiatry states that about 3.6% of Americans will be diagnosed with APD at some time during their life. It is important to remember that no everyone with APD is a criminal, and not every criminal had APD. That goes for serial killers as well. And these killing are not said to be the work of a serial killer - killing for the sake of killing is the motive.
Hopefully that information is helpful. As far as my opinions on your comments goes... Starting out with "Please ladies, even if it's a guy you've been Seeing for years:" is an alarmist overreaction. There is no evidence that there is any risk to providers from long established and trusted clients, that is higher than similar risks found in any relationship in the population at large. So, your suggestion infers that because a woman is a provider that a man (hobbyist) is MORE likely to do something against her. I think that is wrong on so many levels, and I find that notion offensive.
Though research is not available, I bet there are statistically HIGHER risks in relationships outside of the hobby. Just look at who most preditor (driven by patholgy or not) commonly go after: "close" friends, relatives,or those close to their family. I'm refering to molestings, date-rape, spousal-girlfriend rape, etc. A lasting provider-client relationship is as valid as more socially recognized relationships, and in my opinion is sometimes a more honest and valid relationship.
The other factor you are missing when starting with "Please ladies, even if it's a guy you've been Seeing for years:" is that the greatest predictor of future behavior of a person is their past behavior. A provider is safest with a long term client. So, unfortunatley using that statement renders your advice useless, or even detrimental if its false logic creates mistrust.
Next opinion. Provider should feel and BE safe with a client. But the hobbyist should feel and be safe too. You wrote:
"1) Make sure somebody knows where you are, who you’re with, and THAT THE CLIENT KNOWS THAT SOMEONE HAS THIS INFORMATION."
My reaction is WHAT THE F**K???? Are you suggesting that providers disclose a hobbiest's personal information with a third party????
On that comment I honestly ask both the ladies and the gents to put in their opinion, please.
I think you second point is good overall advise for any person, in any situation; it's not something that is unique to providers. In fact, as a hobbiest I have that caution in mind when I to a provider, but not necessarily because of the provider herself. I think the risks of hobbying are often related to what I will call "the environment of illegality" that hobbyist and provider are forced into.
As far as if a provider is more at risk than the population at large in being the "the next victim of some sicko", I am not sure I would buy into that assumption. But...
what does anyone else think?
In summary, I think everyone agrees that screening can add to safety, but no one knows how much. There is no evidence that heavy screening "SCREEN, SCREEN, SCREEN" gives more protection that lighter screening. It does give fewer clients. (I would be a good, safe client, yet I have a limit in how much screening I will accept.)
It is an assumption that those that are screened out are more likely to harm the provider, whether as a "sicko" or LE.
This only thing you can say with any level of certainty is that screening does is make a provider feel more safe. That is important and every provider should make their screening process as heavy or light as they see fit.
-- Modified on 4/18/2009 7:42:03 PM
