I thought getting truthful info to make an informed decision is the point of ter.
And the whole argument is "you know the risks" is a dubious one. Sure, we know the risks, for example with stds but if info comes out someone has been with a sole sex partner that is a provider and got an std from that person.... Of course we'd like to know who it is to avoid the person. Not many of us want to see a provider with an active std. Even tho we accept the risks. Now, ter and similar sites prohibit this wtf info from being shared publicly, because it cannot be proven.
But here you don't need anything to prove since the claim is made by the same guy who looks at pii info
When researching some providers I sometime realize that they are using their real phone # that's associated to their real name and address!
I think they are somewhat dangerous because if they don't care about protecting their own identity they really don't care about yours.
What are your thoughts about these type of providers in the USA?
I do a very good job vetting potential new friends & don't fear anything because I there's a mutual respect for each other's privacy. My identity is no secret once we meet in person I am very honest & don't mind sharing my real name with my friends. I'm 47 years old and if someone wants to come to my house with bad intentions I have a bluenose pitbull who has been my bodyguard and first line of defense for 11 years now.
I don't know how you think because I use my real # that I don't care about protecting my clients identity. 🤔
Tbh I don't see many people. Last year alone my body count was less, than two a month & the majority are regulars. All providers are not the same. I would never jeopardize my good reputation for outing someone. My friends have my real # and can text me anytime between 4am - 8pm. I turn off my phone to get my beauty sleep.
I presume they get your number well after the “researching” stage that OP is referring to, though.
Yes. Her number was provided to me after screening was done.
I see no connection with "if they don't care about protecting their own identity" and "they really don't care about yours."
Also, I can't recall any of the hundreds of women I've seen who were escorting using their own real name. Some did end up sharing this info but only after a relationship of trust had been established.
Just because you haven't noticed it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I come across it quite frequently.
Most of the time they are new to the business but they have been reviewed by other clients.
I agree as it can be very disconcerting. I can’t tell if it’s inexperience, or more of an all too trusting nature, but I certainly can understand the concern from a guys POV.
.
Like Nicky said, they very well might be two, entirely separate issues, but we are dealing in an illegal lifestyle so I think it is less about paranoia and more about self preservation for the client.
.
If I were asked, and on rare occasions I am, to give advice especially to someone new to providing, I would certainly strongly suggest she get a burner phone for many reasons, but one would def be to give the client the impression that protecting his RW info is sacrosanct, and what you are mentioning could give the gent a totally different impression.
you reviewed where you included her real name and phone number in the profile part of the review? Whether or not you are able to find her real name and phone number, I have to concur with Nicky that out of well over 1000 providers I've seen, I have never met one that was not protective of their RL personal information until I had been seeing them as a customer regularly for around 6 months so that each of us are confident the other is not BSC. If it happens frequently, as you claim, my guess is that you are stuck in the low end of the market. These sound like street girls or car dates where the girls have little to lose if arrested and doxxed.
It may not be their real name, may be the prior owner of the number. Many use burner numbers…who knows how many people have used the same number over time…
She is not the only one that does it. Now she is a different case as she has approximately 2 decades experience in the lifestyle so she knows the risks. She feels like it works for her and that’s good enough for me as that’s her call.
.
But I can assure you other women do it with FAR less experience, as I know them personally. They are rare, to be sure, but trust me… they exist. And tbh, I worry about them.
Since QB doesn't post her number online, I assume this means clients only get her number after screening and paying a deposit. That certainly can limit the risk. Obviously, a burner is the least risky. But using a personal cell and posting it in ads/websites is much riskier.
As for those the OP mentions, it's a fair question if he is sure of it. I can take just about any number in an ad and do a reverse look-up. Most produce names/address, etc... That does not mean these are the names/addresses of the current owner (the provider). I have seen some where it's a 65 year old man's name who lives in an entirely different state. I think that's where the question about how sure the OP is comes up.
I imagine there are some where it's that easy. I just wouldn't assume whatever shows up on a reverse look-up is actually them.
Speaking only for myself, the cases I’m referring to aren’t "assumptions", as they are supported by firsthand, verifiable proof along with admissions.
Typically a newbie who doesn't know any better. I have pointed this, or other privacy issues to providers I've met, all with the same surprised reaction that clients use search engines on phone numbers and photos.
They're careless because of inexperience. This is different fro QB in that she doesn't share the information publicly and has a level of comfort with those she does share RL information with.
And I've seen it quite a bit. As some have said, it may be an old number and other people or businesses come up related to that number.
.
However, I have Googled Provider's numbers from their ads and have found all kinds of personal information. Real name, personal residence, day job, Facebook with family, loved ones & friends and much more. If I visit these Providers, I make them aware of the issue and the fallout that can ensue.
.
And it isn't just Newbies.....
One of the ladies I used to see in NY became a good friend. Literally. I had access to certain information that most don't and she would ask me to help her screen clients on occasion.
I moved since then but we stay close and she still asks me to run prospective client's info. Today, for instance, she sent me info on three.
It amazes me that almost every one of the guys who reach out to her use their real phone numbers.
Is anybody else thinking what I'm thinking about the sharing of PII (personal identifying information)?
One of the ladies I used to see in NY became a good friend. Literally. I had access to certain information that most don't and she would ask me to help her screen clients on occasion.
I moved since then but we stay close and she still asks me to run prospective client's info. Today, for instance, she sent me info on three.
It amazes me that almost every one of the guys who reach out to her use their real phone numbers.
Yeah, I was waiting to see what the reaction on that was going to be.
I get that.
The level of trust between us is as high as it can be and she knows damn well I would not do anything with that information besides deleting it after doing my check.
That is completely fucked up. If there is ever a hobbyist code that is put together the number 1 item should be: never let a provider share personal information on another hobbyist with you. The fact that you continue to do this knowing that personal information will be shared is really despicable.
It's hardly despicable to try to keep a provider safe.
What about the women who use assistants and bookers?
That is quite telling.
There are probably assistants out there who have hardly built up the same level of trust he had to build up for a provider to allow him to help. Basically, he's an assistant who likes to hobby too. Anyone who has a problem with this shouldn't book any provider who uses an assistant.
The issue I was bringing up had nothing to do with provider safety or the use of assistants. I have an issue with fellow hobbyists (particularly those that participate on TER boards) screening the PI of other hobbyists. If that doesn't bother you - fine. But, I am confidant it would bother guys on this board if they knew that Holy was reviewing their PI.
What’s the difference between Holy doing the screening and some random assistant doing the screening? Keep in mind there’s nothing stopping the assistant from perusing these boards.
No problem with assistants and bookers and this isn't an issue about provider safety. I am sure your friend in NY can easily retain an assistant or booker other than you. Not a hard thing to do.
The same way you get your information - from providers. Problem is that the NY provider will actually have to pay an assistant/booker.
He may be getting paid or a discounted rate. That was not addressed, so that part is an assumption. You might be right. But, TBH, it doesn't matter. Being paid doesn't make someone more or less trustworthy.
That is a HUGE assumption, speculative and unwarranted. I have had a few Providers ask me for help in vetting some clients. No remuneration offered or asked for. My pleasure to help.
I am not paid and she runs on slim margins at times and would not want to pay an assistant or booker. Besides the fact that she wouldn't be so quick to trust anyone in that role.
I also don't get a "discount" - I have not seen her in her role as a provider in some years. We are strictly friends.
I do it because she's a friend and I want to do what I can to keep her safe. She does not have me help her screen everyone she sees. She only asks me when she feels she's not getting enough from using her own methods to make her comfortable.
She’s clearly leaning on your unique skill set because she recognizes a gap between the information available to her and the broader, more comprehensive insight you can provide al with the goal of improving her safety. That level of trust speaks volumes re; the confidence she has placed in you. Nicely done sir!
Yeah they talk the good talk on how they keep your information safe and it’s for their safety. Yet you got crap like this going on.
If anyone is to know some fellow (aka "trusted" as in trust me bro) client looks at the private and confidential information you send to the escort, some would probably avoid sending it.
I doubt random dick Joe or Harry like some nosey client looking at their rl info.
To top it off, not only a client gets his pii shared with you without him knowing about it, you also brag about it online.
Part of trust encompassing sending of pii info is an agreement this info won't be shared just with anyone. There needs to be a certain level of respect for it and not just sharing it with random people around you.
If a provider were seeing ten clients a day bare back, yet publicly described herself as “low volume” and someone who “plays safe,” many clients would hesitate to share any personal information with her, if they were aware of those facts, no matter how attractive or affordable she might be. In other words, there are plenty of private behaviors that, if made public, could cause you (plural) to not see them, right?
.
But let’s focus on this specific situation rather than drifting into losely related comparisons. For decades, many women in p4p have relied on others to assist with verifcation. This is nothing new. That is part of the reason sites like P411 were created. I don’t think most providers literally mean that your personal information “won’t be shared with ANYONE.” Experienced clients generally interpret that to mean it won’t leave the provider’s internal operation. For some Indys, that OP is just them and only them. For others, it may include assistants/bookers/agency owners, etc etc etc. Come on man. You must know this. lol.
.
And if you believe that none of those people are also clients, I’ve got oceanfront property in Phoenix to sell you. Several have said the same things recently that Holy mentioned, and there wasn’t much, if any, backlash about it then.
.
That said, I’m not arguing that concerns about privacy are invalid as that’s a separate issue. But it does raise a broader question about whether someone should be in this line of work at all on the clients side if that level of unknowable risk is unacceptable.
.
Personally, I operate under the assumption that more than one person may see my verification information. I make decisions on a case by case basis, and I base it on the research I have done on that particular provider. At some point, I either trust the effort I put into that vetting process and move ahead with the date request, or I find red flags, or worse, i.e. flat out factual info that instantly rules her out.
The fact that this supposedly was not an issue in the past - so what. You keep turning this into a generic privacy issue, which wasn't my intent. The concern I raised was about hobbyists being privy to the PI of other hobbyists. So, I will ask the question directly: would any of the guys on this board be upset if they contacted a provider with their PI and then learned that Holy was actually doing the screening?
What reason would the provider have had for relying on Holy to verify her clients to begin with? Is it possible she beleved he was the most reliable resource available to her at the time? It may also be that her previous assistant(s) proved ineffective, or even worse, and thus potentially leaving her exposed to advanced risk.
.
Anyone with even a basic understanding of this lifestyle knows that provider/assistant fallouts are fairly common. When they occur, it’s rarely as simple as snapping your fingers and having the perfect, highly competent booker magically appear out of thin air. It’s a process and one that can really frustrate a SWer.
.
At the end of the day, the decision about who handles her verification can directly impact the providers personal safety. For that reason, such choices are entirely at her discretion so your "intent" is irrelevant. She is the one asuming the risk by meeting with strangers, and strangers that are bigger/stronger than she, and as such, she has the right to decide who is best suited to help keep her safe, and not you. That is the very definition of agency.
What exactly can he do that she cannot do?
Personally I do think that people legitimately can think this is a problem and a violation of any presumed privacy and discretion. Holy should have told the provider not to give him the information but told her how to do whatever screening he would have done for her. Bookers and assistants are actually different, regardless of one's view about any honesty. We make appointments with the understanding screening is done and some limited access to that information is maintained. The limit is supposed to be the provider and her assistant, not and some trusted client.
When we rely on references it's assumed the information will be shared with the reference but the person providing the information for that screening has chosen to approve the sharing what's needed to get the referral. That also holds for clients vouching for someone new but here you would think the guy asking for the referral know the other guy and is okay with it as that guy asked for the favor to begin with. No leakage here.
If it's happening it is, and I think it's a bad idea on the part of Holy to get involved for many reasons rather than just letting the girl know what she needs to do. If Holy has some type of special access for this type of background check then I think that opens up a whole new level of concern. If not, then he is just doing what the provider could be doing and never really needed to have access. But as bad as getting into that position might be, saying it publicly here on the forum was 100 times more stupid and to be honest points to some really poor judgement on his part -- which might in itself be concerning to anyone that he saw PII about.
Trust is a delicate thing an it seems like it was violated here.
Is that a serious question? Do you really think it’s impossible for some, highly skilled clients to possess greater expertise in personal security than any one, individual provider? Many providers already entrust that critical role to others and often because they recognize those people are better equipped to vet and assess risk. That’s not unusual in the least.
.
And even if he is in the process of teaching her, developing that level of skill takes time. It isn’t something anyone masters in a conversation or two. Any gap or misunderstanding during that learning process could have serious consequences, including putting her safety at risk.
I think it is possible for them to know how to do something. I think that can then teach the person how to do that. The tools are not that so complicated that others cannot learn. The only case where I see it not being possible is if Holy has access to non-public systems rather than the many paid and free online services. But in the later case, as I said, that brings up number of other question.
So yes, it is a serious question -- perhaps Holy can explain the reasons he has to provide the support to the person. If it is just "I'm busy can you do this for me" he should be saying, NO. I don't need to see that information and I know a lot of your potential clients might be very put off by it.
Is Holy any less trustworthy or reliable than any anonymous booker?
Does Holy have any more incentive to misuse PII vs any anonymous booker?
Is there any reason to believe that somewhere in P4P world there isn't another booker who also plays?
Is there anything to suggest a conflict of interest or possible bias that might work against either a player or a provider?
Is there any suggestion that Holy has behaved differently WRT players than any anonymous booker?
" In other words, there are plenty of private behaviors that, if made public, could cause you (plural) to not see them, right?"
Let's rephrase that. There is all kinds of information, if made available to clients (plural), that might affect a client's selection process and decision making.
I'm a big believer - remember, I'm pro client and not pro providers biz doing well - in the concept of the more truthful info a consumer has more access to, the better and more informed decisions he (or she, hi lopaw) will make.
Unlike let's say yourself, who would prefer to keep negative info private due to being a gentleman (lol). So maybe you can't grasp this very simple concept. That's the reason I always say there are not enough negative reviews posted proportional to actual negative experiences.
"But let’s focus on this specific situation rather than drifting into losely related comparisons."
Let's. You are the one who made this comparison in the first place.
If all client were told that holy sees all the pii, and if there is even one person who would alter his decision of pii sending due to that, do you agree this is pretty important piece of nformation?
Once again, yes I get that there are assistants and bookers and so on. The implication is the info isn't shared just with anyone. It's great that a provider might have a great relationship with her janitor, way to go! But I don't really want a random janitor to get his or her hands on my pii.
Here's another example. An org I was in decided to make a fake verification site when they wanted business but saw many clients did not want to provide pii.
This site was a sham as it proclaimed it was a third party verification site yet it was made by the org and directly sent info about clients pii to them. It was just a front made to put customers at ease for sharing info.
Once customers learned that it was a sham site, many did not want to go on and submit their pii to the org. Can you blame them? If they were to trust the process and not know this info, they would think otherwise.
I again maintain that having access to as much information as possible, whether public or private, is always to the benefit of the customer.
Her personal safety > you being upset about who verifies her clients.
.
When you give your PI to a provider, you know there is a possibility she will then share that info with an assistant of some kind. She has that choice as its her business...her body...her rules.
.
You can totally avoid that risk by seeing women who dont require it. Easy, peasy.
But as of now no one can avoid seeing whoever it is that is sharing with Holy as she has not been named.
If it really isn't an issue then he should also be upfront about who that provider is. I don't know he reasons but it is hardly unreasonable to assume Holy understands that making that information public here could harm her business. And I would say that is the acid test for this issue.
[Note, this is not some refutation of the suggestion to see only those not requiring screening, and I suspect many that are concerned are the one's that already don't provide PII so the personal info is really not the issue.]
-- Modified on 5/1/2026 5:41:08 PM
How cute how you're moving goalposts now.
I once again ask you, do you agree that having more information on the seller is a better thing than having less info?
And that knowing a provider entrust their info to another entity may prevent a client from giving this info in the first place? Do you agree with that? If so then you do agree it's better for the client to know to make good decisions that benefit the customer?
Tell you what, if you see nothing wrong with it, why don't we ask holy to publicly state who the provider is?
Then everyone will know of it and can make the decision for themselves whether they want their pii read by holy.
You claim there is no issue so let's see. Something tells me he will not name this provider publicly.
If there's nothing wrong with it and providers have used bookers and assistants for thousands of years yadda yadda yadda.
Why doesnt holy let us know who it is so then other clients will know about it and those of us who don't want to have him see our pii, can avoid doing so?
What do you say?
-- Modified on 5/1/2026 1:57:36 PM
First and foremost, there is always risk when turning over pii information. And, the more people that are involved in seeing this information, the greater the risk. And, it is a personal choice how comfortable you are with sharing that information or not.
That said, it's normal practice that providers who use an assistant do not tell clients that they use an assistant. If you are okay with the provider getting this information but not an assistant, you need to assume the possibility and make that clear up front.
However, if you do not have an issue with an assistant, but you have conditions on the assistant, like they cannot be a client, they cannot be on TER boards, they must be getting paid, etc., etc., etc..., you are better off just not being okay with an assistant. These details are not your business and you're not going to get them out of a provider.
And, it's pretty outrageous for you to even sarcastically suggest that a client who posts on this board out the provider that allows him to assist her. That's none of your business.
I don't think so. If your claim is everyone is OK with assistants and bookers, so therefore they should be OK with holy, then you better be OK with naming the provider and yes, THEN the clients can make this personal choice you're talking about.
If both holy and the provider are so confident in his abilities as a screener, what is there to hide? Why shouldn't the client have this information to enable him make better decisions?
When you contact a provider by text, email, or a booking form, that very moment there is a chance you’re actually contacting their assistant or a booker. Someone like yourself who is not new to this knows this is the case. Only very few actually mention in their websites or ads that you will first work with their assistant.
When you choose to contact them, you assume that risk. That’s your choice. Any information you share, that’s your choice. If you don’t want to work with an assistant, it is your choice to communicate that and see if they are willing to work directly with you or they choose to chalk it up and you both move on.
But if you choose not to ask for an exception, it’s not your business who they employ to assist them. That’s their business to manage. And, they should be just as concerned as you are who they employ. And, more often than not, they are. And if they have a friend who they feel they have built trust with, that’s their business.
You want to make an informed decision, well consider yourself informed that this is less unusual than you may realize. A second person already said he’s done it as well. Now you know that if you want to add this criteria, you can ask for that as well.
And, while you’re busy fighting for clients rights, you never did answer my earlier questions. Do you even give any of them pii information anyway?
I have stated, on record that I've never given nor am planning to give my pii info to anyone in this industry.
That hasn't changed at all.
So what gotcha moment are you trying to conjure up here? That if I don't send my pii, I shouldn't be concerned for others who do? Are you really asking why I'm not selfish or egotistical?
"get yours first, them other mongers are secondary
This type of illin that be fillin up the cemetery
This life is temporary but the soul is eternal
Separate the real from the lie - let me learn you"
The questions are in the post at the bottom. That was posted before this exchange. I was referencing that you didn’t answer my questions.
And you confirmed what I was pretty sure I knew. And there is no gotcha moment. If you think I’m out to get you, you are far off. I’m trying to reason with you and show you a different perspective.
And be real with me. Are you really concerned with every monger on this board? Do you care about everyone else? It feels more like you’re trying to win an argument and trying to be righteous. But what you don’t seem to understand is that no one needs you to save them from their decisions. Not everyone shares your same concerns.
Most of us regulars on here didn’t stumble here after a couple of bookings in the past couple months. We more than likely have been at this for years and have seen quite a few providers. We understand the risks. While you might not agree with the risks others take, and by all means that is your right, it’s still not your place to decide for them. Your place is to decide for yourself. If someone asks you for your advice, by all means give your perspective.
But your way is just one way. And, it doesn’t make your way the only right way. And, your way is to not give out pii. That means your entire argument is because you think others need you to save them or something of the sort. Like
What the heck dude?
Any provider, any assistant or any booker can be a risk with your pii. That’s a given. Anyone who does not want to take that risk should not take it. Anyone who does has to know there is never a guarantee that only the provider is seeing it. And, this is not something that is revealed up front. If they use a friend the risk is not greater or better than a hired assistant. It’s quite presumptuous to think because they’re not paid help they are a greater risk.
The simplest answer if you don’t want to take a risk is to not provide pii. And, you very clearly understand this and have made the decision to not provide it. Already, you have shown your level of concern is different than someone willing to share it. You and they are not the same. But you’re applying your level of concerns to their situation anyway. Did it ever cross your mind they may not want your help? They might be perfectly fine with assistants/trusted friends helping?
But the wildest part of all this is that through your messaging about caring about others, you pressed for name of the provider. You wanted her to be outed. Is your mission to fight for clients and give no shits about providers?
How the fuck would she be "outed"? For fucks sake.
This would just state her alias on here.
You yourself have argued that she's doing nothing of the ordinary and people shouldn't care. So why not tell who it is so people who don't like holy in particular looking at their info, know who to avoid?
I know why, and it's not because of "outing". It's because you don't want providers to lose business.
But her losing business would contradict claims that it's nothing of the ordinary.
So yes, if it helps clients make a decision they want to make, her name would be known.
If you actually cared about other clients. And not the providers wallet.
I have no problem with a provider doing whatever she needs to do for screeenig. But if a monger finds out she's using another monger for screening, and wants to nothing to do with her, he has a right to ask for her name so he could avoid her.
Especially considering half of this thread tries to convince us she's doing nothing out of ordinary.
You and holy are gaslighting all the clients who don't want holys eyes on their pii pii.
Her alias on here? First off, most providers use their provider name on here. They don’t have an alias. Unless you’re pointing out the fact that provider names are not their real names. But this is far from the same as a client with username and/or alias on here. Her provider names exposes a way to contact and harass her. Any decent person wouldn’t put their friend in this position. You expecting it is outrageous.
So now this is about Holy in particular? You take issues with him specifically? He’s one of the most reasonable guys on here. What’s your beef with him?
You think I’m worried about her losing business? I don’t even know who she is. And, I’m not convinced she would lose business. The clients she asks to screen who willing give her pii are not like you. All it does is open the door for her to be harassed.
It is not your right, or anyone else’s right to ask and expect her name. That’s some next level entitlement. No one owes you a thing. There may be a hundred others who do the same thing who haven’t shared it on this board. Use this knowledge and proceed with caution. But save the demands and stop acting like you’re owed something.
And gaslighting? Lmao. I have no skin in the game. I just disagree with you. Is that so hard to understand?
He means her alias for working - in other words, how someone would know her if they were trying to book a session. Nothing secret about that other than Holy has not mentioned it.
I think if both Holy and the provider think nothing was wrong then acknowledging who she is would not be an issue for either. But, perhaps they are starting to think maybe that was a bad decision on their parts and will just stop. While I suspect we will not be told who (and I suppose some people might start looking at his reviews for who is currently working and not see any of them as they don't know who) but Holy could let everyone know what he will do going forward. Tell the provider he doesn't want to information shared with him or if he will keep doing as he has.
Honestly don't get why you guys keep responding to rocket. No matter how many times you explain a different point of view, or others chime in with agreement, he will never yield his viewpoint on things. He is incapable of seeing things through others eyes or accepting that someone else cannot be convinced to agree with him.
Geez, this is getting absurd. Why don't you all move on? If you are that put off with HolyStoneTheDeck's actions, as you or someone else mentioned, don't see the women he has reviewed. Get over it and have fun with someone else. Plenty of fish in the sea!
I thought getting truthful info to make an informed decision is the point of ter.
And the whole argument is "you know the risks" is a dubious one. Sure, we know the risks, for example with stds but if info comes out someone has been with a sole sex partner that is a provider and got an std from that person.... Of course we'd like to know who it is to avoid the person. Not many of us want to see a provider with an active std. Even tho we accept the risks.
Now, ter and similar sites prohibit this wtf info from being shared publicly, because it cannot be proven.
But here you don't need anything to prove since the claim is made by the same guy who looks at pii info
Something you still don't get.
New information came in that holy gets to look at clients pii info. Several mongers including some in this thread said that's it's unacceptable.
So now they need information who is the provider so they can avoid her. I bet some of them already made their decision based on this info..
If the claim is that provider is doing nothing wrong here, why not say who the provider is? Providers don't hide who their assistants are and providers assistants don't hide either.
I hope you understand that right now you're actively preventing information being spread that would enable clients to not see whoever lets holy read pii even if they wish to do so. How is that not fucked up to the clients who actively want to avoid holys eyes on their government name?
If a client specifically asks to not see a provider who employs holys free service, why shouldn't he get that info?
Its very very practical actually. Practical for the client.
The only new information is that Holy shared he did it. If you think that it’s new information that this practice is new at all, your head’s in the clouds. Not sure what you have against Holy.
They do not need to know who allows Holly to help. If any of them only has an issue with Holy doing it, they may want it. But it’s not their right to get it. But stop pretending this is about Holy. They, and you, would have responded the same no matter who it was. It’s about the practice in of itself. Holy outing one provider doesn’t change the practice. If anyone doesn’t like the practice, they now know this is something they need to consider. You’re not changing providers from having friends help, and yes they might be mongers.
I’m not actively preventing anything. Holy will do what Holy thinks is right regardless of what I say. He’s a grown man. I’m sharing my opinion with you, nothing more. The fact you actually have the nerve to blame me for you not getting your way is just more you being ridiculous.
I find it pretty hilarious that a guy who is not willing to provide pii is arguing about what the conditions of giving pii should be. You’re arguing something you aren’t even willing to use. This isn’t about Holy. It’s not even about the provider Holy helps. It’s about the practice. You’re not changing it. But this is your thing, you come here guns a blazing thinking you’re able to convince everyone that they should change and your viewpoint is the only one that is right.
-- Modified on 5/1/2026 9:50:22 PM
I hope to lord each one of you that advocates for not saying her name, never ever even tries to say they're pro monger or that we should do research. When you're the ones advocating withholding info that might prevent someone from doing something they don't want to do. Hypocrite ass shit. I will dunk anyone's ass into this thread each time robert or anyone else who supports this will even try to utter shit about "research".
Yes you are gaslighting folks who want to take business away from a provider now that they heard a random monger looks t their pii.
Again simple question - if what holy does is OK why not say her name? This way anyone who doesn't want holy specifically to look at pii can do so. Avgain, you have no answer for that.
Once again, if you think it's OK to do this, what's the harm?
There is no fucking harm.
No, the only reason you'd have to protect the name of the provider (and yes, alias as in not her government name) is to ensure she doesnt lose business. And whom will she lose business from? People who don't want holy to look at info.
Hence you put this providers business and pockets over mongers privacy and wish to not see any provider who shares pii with holy.
So, welcome to the club of doormats and provider bootlickers who don't give a shit about mongers but pretend to do so. You get an obligatory fuck you from me for joining it.
I'm arguing - something you still haven't gotten - that it is mongers best interest to know the information that helps him avoid others.
If the monger wants to avoid holy looking at the pii, they would like to know the providers name.
And no, this isn't about me getting my way or other nonsense. I'm not the one to appeal to majority of anything, but it wasn't me in this thread who said this is despicable. Even Jensen who disagrees with me on a lot of information hiding, stated that her name should be given so that mongers make the decision for themselves.
Youre running interference on info that would enable a monger to not do something he doesn't want to do.
Unlike you, I don't give a flying fuck about providers biz. Here today gone tomorrow. Give customers who want to avoid holy looking at their shit, her name so they can avoid it.
For the thousandth time, if what she's doing is akin to assistants or bookers, and if it's OK in your eyes - why hide it?
Is it because secretly, deep down in your heart, you know that mongers won't like this and won't give her business?
Well yeah, shit. That's what is supposed to happen when customers make decisions, not simps. Good!
You're, again, actively preventing info that could be used by mongers to make decisions, from being spread.
You clowns only pretend you're pro monger decisions. When in reality yall don't care. Just like you didn't care about mongers when a provider gave you a free sesh so you can change your review and you didn't even state that in your second review. Instead youre protecting providers biz. You're going against everything a site like this stands for.
-- Modified on 5/2/2026 12:44:22 PM
Suggesting that someone should expose a woman simply because she chose a verifier you don’t personally approve of is the height of arrogance. As a client, you are entitled to SOME information but certainly not ALL of it.
.
Your role as the consumer is to decide whether what is publicly available is sufficient for you to make a booking, not to demand or dictate how, or with whom, she protects her safety.
You're the one who is speaking nonsense here. Saying which provider employs holys service does not expose her in any way, shape or form. What it does is enable clients to know information they have otherwise no access to.
If holy didn't brag we wouldn't even know it.
I what fucking way would an escort be exposed here? Unlike with our pII information, we are not sharing her pii info.
It's a simple question you got trapped in. If it's so benign and everybody does this, what harm does this do to let us know and then make the decision?
We both know what's going on here, really. You're just playing coy.
He won't name the provider because many guys will not like their pii shared with him and they will make their decision to not see her, affecting her business.
420 has called you out on this hypocrisy of yours where you say you're this awesome researcher but in reality you don't actually care if clients do research. You do not actually want them to make decisions based on what they believe in.
And any time there's information out there that might influence a client's decision to not see her, you're out here doing mental jumping Jack's to prevent this information from reaching a client. And have the nerve to talk about how you're a good researcher. Foh with this gaslighting.
-- Modified on 5/1/2026 7:11:53 PM
You might want to make sure to start any booking request with this line:
"Before I share any personal information, I need you to confirm you and only you are seeing it and that you are not using an assistant."
That should weed out most providers from screening you since you're only trusting the provider, and not an assistant.
Don't you typically use bookers for kgirls? And, correct me if I am wrong, you don't even provide pii information anyway? If so, this situation doesn't really impact you. This is just you sharing your opinion about how those who are willing to share pii information should feel?
And hopefully they don’t do this. But where this becomes risky is using the phone number to checkin at a hotel. Hotels often run numbers on Google and if your number pops up with an ad attached then your risk for getting busted is higher. Hopefully this person is using a different number than the one they are giving out. Also some people men included don’t realize that the app they are using is often running on the network of the phone number it’s being used on. Which then leads back to their information. This is why a separate phone is best not an app. Although I have connected the burner phone to their real phone as well but can’t tell you how that is done .
Why do some providers insist on a client using a real phone number?
They want a real number so they can background check you.
So they know exactly who you are.
Use a burner app. Not worth the drama.
Look at heshitshetwins. Guy is so scared of getting caught he uses an alias for his alias screename....