I've noticed a disturbing trend.  An increasing number of providers and agencies are demanding excessive disclosures as part of their screening process, to include photos and photo ID, among other things.  This is absolutely unacceptable.  Does anyone actually provide this?  One would have to be a fool to comply.  Assurances of "discretion" or promises to immediately delete the information are worthless because they're unverifiable.  Once someone submits his personally identifying information, he is immediately and forever vulnerable to blackmail.  The providers know this, which is why they would NEVER reciprocate and submit the same information to their clients.  Please, everyone, think with your BIG heads and absolutely REFUSE to comply with intrusive screening.  It's in your own best interest and in the general interest of the community.

This has probably been one of the top 10 recurring themes in posts over the past year or two.

I've pretty much been sticking with regular squeeze since COVID, so it really hasn't affected me before now.  Now that it has, I find it surprising.  Who in his right mind is willing to provide this kind of information?  If they were to simply stop doing it, the problem would disappear.

It’s not going away. Too many providers request it and too many mongers provide it. Wondering if the OP is a P411 subscribers?

Not really how most behave though.

I can't control others' stupidity. I can only point it out to them. As for me, I will NEVER put myself at risk. If a provider or agency insists on intrusive disclosure, that's a clear indication they're untrustworthy and strictly to be avoided. Let's be absolutely clear. There is NO legitimate reason to demand photos or ID -- NONE. The ONLY reason a provider would ask for this is to facilitate blackmail.  It might not be her immediate intention, but she's setting up the option.

Requiring ID is not a

Your comment is ridiculous.  When someone insists that you do something completely unnecessary, rest assured; there is  a REASON, and that reason is NOT for your benefit.  In this case, there is no reason for excessively intrusive screening EXCEPT to enable blackmail.  That few are actually blackmailed only indicates that few are actually WORTH blackmailing.

Providers aren't unique in facing danger.  Clients are robbed, brutalized, and  blackmailed.  As regarding blackmail, established providers don't blackmail clients ... until they do, for any number of reasons.  Respect and security are two-way streets.  Do you provide your clients with your full legal name, copy of your valid ID, and a selfie photo holding up today's paper?  Any provider unwilling to give these these things to her clients has no business demanding them.  

You make your own choices but your claim that not providing that information is somehow protecting your is foolish if you believe what your claim about intent. If someone is out to start blackmailing people they don't need to ask for that type of info. It's way to easy to gather information about you, including video and audio of you in the act. You going to your car, the car license plate. Pictures of your face, which can then be match to other images on social sites or other internet sources. They can even fallow you to your place of work or home.

She's providing access to her person, in a vulnerable situation where she could be beat up or worse. There are risks on both sides, but they aren't the same risks.  

A former colleague of mine was blackmailed some years ago.  The provider wanted $100K, but he ignored the demand.  After his divorce, property settlement, and lost job, it cost him over $2 Million.  I will NEVER put myself in his position.  The other risks you mention can be largely mitigated.  For example, don't let anyone see you go to/from your car, carry nothing to the room except cash, discretely inspect the room for possible covert video surveillance, and maintain ZERO social media presence.  It doesn't eliminate all risk, but it certainly minimizes exposure.  By comparison, gratuitously increasing exposure is unwise.

The risks are identical for both parties, so the screening shouldn't impose unduly on one party or the other, but reasonable solutions exist.  You mention P411.  There are also whitelists and referrals.  There are providers that demand all these PLUS full legal name, valid ID, selfies, and employer contact information.  I'm merely pointing out that it is entirely unreasonable for a provider to demand that which she is unwilling to give herself.  It's really that simple.  What will I do?  I'll continue to be reasonable and reject providers that aren't.  

This comment is mind bugling (not calling you stupid, just saying the comment isn’t well thought out). It’s not all about the risk of getting blackmailed  

That's all part of the blackmail angle.  

I'll never do it. It's too dangerous.  

There’s a lot that happens in a scenario between reaching out to a provider and settling a divorce for two million dollars! I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that his friend didn’t even provide his ID to the other woman, or that that particular dalliance was the root cause of the divorce.

this is the same topic over and over again.  

Perceived risk is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously no one is going to convince you that blackmail isn't your #1 concern. You've got your friend's example, after all.  

It was the cause of all his misfortunes.  It precipitated the divorce, but it also caused him to lose his job and associated stock options, which was responsible for most of his financial losses.  The provider demanded the money, but he refused.  Several weeks later, he was served with a divorce summons and a court order barring him from his house.  I suspect he and his wife were eventually headed for divorce anyway, but this gave his wife an excuse to pull the trigger and try to bleed him.  When she filed a subpoena against his employer, they immediately fired him rather than comply, which happened prior to him being vested in his options.  The options alone were worth over $2 Million at the time he was fired.  Had he not divulged personally identifying information to the provider, none of it would have happened, or at least not happen the way it did.  

It also surprises me that references are no longer acceptable alone by many, but I'm sure everyone has their reasons, even if it reduces the pool significantly.   Even though I don't take part, I assume most of the well reviewed ladies have good intentions.  While the concerns the op made are valid, my main concern is what LE would do with the client info after a bust.   I remember a major bust a while ago where LE posted the client list online and called it a shaming mechanism.  This was around the time that (classydc??) was busted and a lot of people had concern about what LE would do with their client list, although I don't think they ever posted it.  Ever since then I've used an alias and TracFone which has worked well since all my referrals were via the alias.  It limits my pool now days, but I wouldn't risk changing course.  

Your completely unnecessary insistence on intrusive screening disclosure does not protect "everyone", only YOU, and it puts the fools who provide that information at gratuitous risk.  Why should any client trust YOU?  Will you give them YOUR information?  From  what you say, you should.  After all, you say you want to protect EVERYONE, or don't you really mean that?

by seeking providers while you're in some type of relationship or position that would result in a high financial loss if that activity were to be come know? Simple solution: stop seeing hookers. Because if you do you ARE putting yourself in that position.

Reason dictates that one must assume NONE of them have good intentions.  They intend to do what's good for THEM, everyone else be damned, but that's as far as it goes.  Like you, I will never submit to this nonsense.  If some providers refuse to see me on account of it, I don't really want to see THEM, anyway.  By definition, they're untrustworthy, and I'm better off steering clear.

Excuse me, but  the risks are essentially the same on both sides.  There have been many instances of clients being assaulted, pistol-whipped, even stabbed or shot by providers' boyfriends/pimps, etc..  It has even been known to sometimes happen with providers who have established long histories of quality service.  It's not commonplace, but it's every bit as common as providers suffering similar outrages.  I'd also add that such things are almost impossible to occur in a quality hotel with pervasive surveillance.  Ripoffs, i.e. grab-and-dash scams, are the most common pitfalls on both sides.  Even well reviewed providers, from time to time, have done this, and it's just as reprehensible as when some dirtbag client does it.  It's a risk both sides face, and there are reasonable, non-intrusive solutions that have worked for a long time.  If the "supply side", as you call it, is unwilling to be reasonable, I don't want what it's supplying.  

I dumped my thieving ex-wife years ago, but not having a spouse doesn't immunize one from blackmail risk.  After I divorced her, my ex-wife actually tried to blackmail me!  She demanded $50,000.00, or she threatened to LIE to the company I worked for and claim that I had embezzled large sums money and committed various other egregious transgressions.  Mind you, I was flawlessly faithful to that bitch.  I showered her with gifts, treated her like a queen, then she did THAT to me.  I refused to pay, and she promptly denounced me to the company, which set off a months-long investigation into her allegations.  Ultimately, I was completely exonerated, but it cost me another $10.000.00 in legal fees, on top of what I earlier paid my divorce lawyer.  This is what my WIFE did, and I'm supposed to trust some anonymous provider who could exactly the same thing?  Experience has given me a very low opinion of humanity, especially women.  I've been lied to, cheated on, ripped off, and slandered by them, and I refuse to let anyone do these things to me ever again.  I refuse to be vulnerable.

Dud, you really should take a very deep breath and seek some help in getting grounded again. You sound very much like someone that sees themself as a victim living in a world where everyone is out to further take advantage of them.  Seriously, please go get some professional counseling before you really come unhinged and do something you (and probably others) will regret.

On my end, I’m noticing a lot of ladies not participating in references giving anymore. I think it may be related to the uptick in ladies screening with only RWI. I reach out to see if a potential client was a gentleman, and no reply. I see on Reddit a lot of ladies that don’t accept or give references either. I feel like 5-10 years ago, reference screening was like the gold standard. Not so much anymore. It’s a real bummer because I actually prefer references over newbie screening with RWI. I respect a ladies choice to do whatever she needs to do to feel safe, but not participating in references is like a blow to the sisterhood.

-- Modified on 4/11/2023 9:28:23 AM

And these same people deny it. They don't see the double standards or refuse to see them.

Jensen, can you (or cks, might as well be the same person) provide statistics of who in the biz gets fucked over because of information misuse... and reference your sources please.  

Someone who is concerned about a two-way business and privacy , is labeled as "unhinged" and that everyone is out to get them.

So, I get victimized by my ex-wife, and somehow my refusal to be victimized again is a sign of mental disturbance??  No, it's a sign of WISDOM.  

... and there are providers that insist on NO reviews.  If a client is found to have written, or is suspected of having written, a review, he's banned and blacklisted.  Many of these same providers insist on clients submitting complete Personally Identifying information.  It's getting to be ridiculous.  It should also be pointed out that it's not all that difficult to create a fake persona.  Reviews and references are the gold standard.  It does, however, rely to a certain extent on TER and others curating the reviews and the provider profiles so as to minimize scams.

That was not blaming a victim. You seem, even here, rather obsessed with both victim status and victim fears. Maybe you feel like you need to "man-up" about it, that real men don't ask for directions or help, or read instructions. But many people ignore their trauma and end up suffering needlessly and then projecting onto others. I honestly think you should talk with someone that understands trauma and mental distress and that you will have a better life for it. It doesn't sound to me like you're really moved on from the divorce and other BS your ex pulled.

Excuse me; I'm the very definition of "manning up".  I effectively countered the thieving bitch I was married to, managing to divorce her at 95% less cost than most guys in a similar situation, though she did manage to inflict some professional anxiety and additional cost on me on the back end.  I didn't wait around for her to take me to the cleaners, nor will I blindly stumble into a situation where some provider could do that to me.  Never!  I'm offering the community the benefit of my experience and judgement.  If you don't like my advice, you're free to go your own way.  Hopefully, you won't regret your choice.  I certainly won't regret mine.  It's a dangerous world out there, and people need to keep their eyes open and wits about them if they are to survive.  

you wife as angry and scorned... thats why is better not marry and just hire reputable professionals. LOL!!  

for everyone safety and privacy.  
I do have a professional life, I assume you have one too?  
Many times I have had booking request from men that I know in my professional life and I had declined our request. Usually I would say "we are not a good match". so they dont contact me again, I would not out / dox them, but I dont want to have a Veronica relationship encounter. It would be very unconfortable for both parts, (mostly for you).  

references are bs to be honest. What is a good client for me, it may nt be a good client for other provider and vice versa.  
Many times I ask for a reference, (that the client provided) but her reference wasn't even a good one. LOL I wont say who or anything else than that.  The times I trust blind references, I had the worst of the appointments.  

I do get the similarity between you using references and the problem we mongers have with using reviews in the different strokes for different folk sense. But I would have thought that most providers developed some reputation among other providers and that on critical aspect there is much less subjectivity about a customer's behavior. Did they pay without issue. Do they try pushing for services you don't offer? Violence? No concept of personal hygiene? Doesn't want to leave when the time expires....

from what I’ve read from providers on Twitter and here, Veronica’s experience is not uncommon. For whatever reasons, some of the worst experiences they’ve had were with clients that were “reference only” screened.

Maybe they were like what Veronica was talking about -- blind references. I took that to mean from unknown sources. Sounds like providers have the same problems with their version of a review as we do on our side. If so it's too bad both for them and for those on our side that have a lot at risk or just have a lot of concerns about shared information.

Why didn't you then press criminal charges against your ex-wife?  Blackmail is illegal...

My ex-wife was "angry and scorned" because I prevented her from ripping me off to subsidize her future life with her boyfriend?  I couldn't care less.  That said, there's some truth in what you say regarding "professional relationships."  That only applies, however, when anonymity is maintained, on BOTH sides.

I don't believe we've ever corresponded, but that's no matter.  You're probably right that we're not a good match.  I find it surprising, though, that you would get companionship inquiries from men you know professionally in real-life.  I would imagine the probability of that happening to be near zero, unless you both work and provide in a small community.  The providers I've known who live in small towns generally travel to large metropolitan areas to provide, in order to keep their provider existence separate from their personal lives.

What would a provider rather admit publicly?  

I don’t think it’s so much that we aren’t looking out for one another. I think it’s that people can be unpredictable. Especially if they don’t get what they want. If provider 1 has very few No’s on her menu, so to speak, and provider 2 has quite a bit, then if provider 2 requests a reference from provider 1, and provider 1 said she had no problems (because the client got everything he wanted), then provider 2 has to say No a lot, and the client pushes boundaries. Men can be very dangerous when they don’t get what they want.

Just had to add to this thread a provider with a recent ad on the DC board requests a picture of a paystub as part/option of their screening. That’s ridiculous.

-- Modified on 4/14/2023 10:56:10 PM

My attorney recommended against it.  Prosecutors seldom pursue those kinds of cases.  It's also difficult to sue for slander or defamation.  I was advised that the best course was to have my attorney engage with my employer's legal office, which is what I did.  He then focused on monitoring the fairness of the internal investigation that ultimately exonerated me.  Though I was exonerated, my potential for advancement with the company was thoroughly compromised.  I held a fairly senior position at the time, but was effectively blackballed from any higher placement.  I eventually left the company not quite two years after being cleared of any wrongdoing.  I've done well since then, but I suffered a significant setback.  In retrospect, getting married was the worst mistake of my life!  A wife or significant other is like a Sword of Damocles hanging over your head.  Your life is literally in her hands to do with as she please, for whatever reason, or for no reason at all.  In today's nonsensical #MeToo bullshit world, it is especially dangerous.  Any guy who has anything to lose must take great care to protect himself.  If you insist on getting married, you shouldn't do it without first getting an iron clad pre-nup incorporating a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).  Any woman who refuses to sign needs to be DUMPED immediately.  She's simply not worth the risk.

It seems like you're beginning to catch on!  Personally Identifying Information (PII) has absolutely NO bearing on the kinds of issues providers are routinely concerned about, which you list.  It does, however, put the provider in the driver's seat, giving her something to hang over the client's head when and if she chooses to do so.  One could make the case that PII in a provider's possession would inhibit a client from engaging in violence, but that's a specious argument.  If you meet the client in a quality hotel, the probably of violence is near-zero anyway.  Why, then, would any provider demand this information, and, more importantly, would any client comply?  

That's what some claim, but is it true?  It's easy to falsely make that claim merely to "justify" intrusive screening.

That just means one should better qualify the reference in terms of the services requested and provided.  

As soon as people stop complying, the ridiculousness will stop.  

Hardly. I have not been confused on this issue for many years. I just reject the blanket statement that just because PII is part of some providers screening process that they are therefore planning to use it to blackmail someone later.  

Your privacy will never ever ever be more important than my safety

Oops, you're backsliding!  You were approaching a moment of clarity, but you let it slip through your fingers.  Yes, we all make our own choices, but they should always be INFORMED choices.  I'm trying to inform people, and encourage critical thinking.  In your earlier post, you just about nailed it, using critical thinking to correctly deduce that PII tells a provider NOTHING she would need to know about a prospective client before seeing him.  That information can ONLY be obtained through references.  The only thing PII gives a provider is the ability to surveil a client, to study him, to ascertain his net worth & vulnerabilities, and to THREATEN him with reputational and personal damage.  Rest assured; every last provider who demands PII has this intent in the back of her conniving mind.  
                                     
          As an interesting aside, I recently surfed through an escort site that purports to cater to a high net worth and VIP/celebrity clientele.  As part of their "introduction" service, they arrange Non-Disclosure Agreements to be signed in advance by the escorts, who don't know who the clients are, with the details finalized during negotiations with the client's legal counsel.  If the client is a recognizable personage, I suppose the escort  will surmise the client's identity upon meeting him, but the terms of NDA are designed to inflict massive financial liability on the escort if she ever reveals anything about the client or their encounter.  I find this quite interesting.  There's evidently a demand for this kind of service, which, in turn, derives from clients' perceived vulnerability.  I'm not sure an NDA will provide adequate protection under all circumstances.  Donald Trump's NDA didn't protect him from Stormy Daniels.  Sure, the courts held her liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars, but Trump's political enemies paid Stormy MUCH more than that to violate the agreement, and to perhaps fabricate her account.  The only REAL protection is anonymity.  

Your safety is no more at risk than the client's, and your privacy is no more important than his.

Everyone has their own comfort level - on both sides of the business. If a lady asks me for something that I feel uncomfortable with I won't see her, that's all. I won't hassle her or try to get her to change her ways, I just move on.

Must be a case of entitlement -- guy must have a list of providers he wishes he could see but all require PII.  

Actual risks are higher for providers than hobbyists. In theory they might be equal, but the reality is that it’s not equal.

I've read through the thread and if this question has been asked, I overlooked it and apologize for the repetition.  

Yes, everyone has his own comfort level, and everyone is responsible for his own choices, but those should be INFORMED choices.  One critical piece of information for a prospective client to consider is that Personally Identifying Information (PII) offers NOTHING that a provider would need in order to make an informed judgement about whether or not to see that client, assuming references and/or whitelists are available.  PII does, however, put the provider in the driver's seat with respect to the client.  She'll know his name, where he lives, where he works, and what his approximate net worth is.  She could also likely identify his wife (if he has one), his children, his other relatives, and much of the rest of his social circle.  In short, PII will generally give a provider everything she needs in order to threaten the client's existence from a position of secure anonymity.  It's a recipe for blackmail, and there's no other, legitimate, reason for a provider to demand such disclosure.  NONE.  This is why providers never disclose THEIR PII to clients.  
                           
          Once everyone unequivocally understands all this, they're equipped to make their respective, informed choices.  Some clients will invariably choose to comply, despite the risks.  Those that do are either fools, or they have nothing to lose.  Putting fools aside for the moment, what about the others?  Would a provider really want a clientele largely comprised of ditch diggers and parolees?  I wouldn't think so.  I'd imagine a rational provider would categorically reject the losers and focus exclusively on the fools.  It best serves the provider's interests because fools are easy to cheat and otherwise take advantage of, so it makes them attractive as clients, especially for those providers with nefarious intentions.  So, before turning over your PII to a provider, just remember that you're being screened and qualified as a FOOL.  If you're Ok with that, go right ahead.  As they say, "A fool and his money are soon parted", as well they SHOULD be.

References and whitelists are the gold standard, at least when they're from recognized, quality providers.  TER and other board handles are no problem, either, along with emails and contact numbers.

Any far as I'm concerned, any provider that insists on PII disclosure is an immediate write-off, not to be trusted, and I have no regrets about this.  Lately, though, I've noticed an alarming trend of providers increasingly insisting on PII.  That they're doing this implicitly confirms that there is a growing body of fools out there complying with this nonsense.  My intention is to help the community understand the implicit risks of this foolishness.  Some people can't be helped, I suppose, but if I can help at least one guy out there avoid catastrophe, I'll be satisfied that I've done some good.  

Your blind assertion carries ZERO weight.  The risks -- thievery, violence, and blackmail -- are identical on both sides.  If you claim otherwise, PROVE IT, or accept this self-evident fact.  Also, if meetings are arranged in quality hotels, the risks are vastly diminished, in particular with respect to violence.  The probability is approximately ZERO that a client or pimp/"boyfriend" will commit an act of violence in a well secured hotel with pervasive video surveillance.  Blackmail can be just about eliminated as a possibility by not sharing PII.  Thievery, though, is a different matter.  EVERY client -- and provider -- has been ripped off at least once.  It goes with the territory, I'm afraid.  References/whitelists are the best defense against thieving clients, just as reviews are the best defense against thieving providers.  Neither, however, are infallible.  Every now and then, a well reviewed provider -- or well referenced client -- will perpetrate a rip-off, and PII won't prevent that.  By the way, does anyone imagine for an instant that a provider who would rip you off WOULDN'T blackmail you if she could?  It's best to simply not give her the opportunity in the first place.  Anyway, the best we can do is to minimize the occurrence of thievery by promptly outing the perpetrators in the community.  Disclosing PII only compounds the attendant risk.

I'm assuming you're giving verifiable and recent references?  Because if not, I'm not sure how in the world else you expect to be screened.

Wait! Hold the presses.

Then you haven't been around.  I've been ripped off three times over the years -- grab and dash -- all by well-reviewed providers with whom I had previously good experience, but not within the past five or six years.  Statistically, my rip-off ratio is extremely low at less than 1%, from what I've read on various boards.  There are rip-off reports on TER if you cared to look.  If anything, though, rip-offs are underreported here.  Anyway, I don't dwell on it.  As I said, it goes with the territory.  Everyone just needs  to remember that no matter how well-reviewed a provider might be, or how pleasant your relationship with her has been, she's only as good and as trustworthy as her last client's experience. As in anything else, past performance doesn't necessarily guarantee future results.  Why, then, would you trust her with your LIFE?

By your own admission, you just lost the argument.  You readily concede that once you have a client's PII, you have the option to blackmail him.  Case closed; you LOSE.  That you haven't blackmailed anyone, or claim not to have, is irrelevant.  You implicitly reserve that option for the time and place of your choosing.  Let me also reinforce one point.  Having a client's PII doesn't guarantee that he doesn't have bad intentions, nor that you won't have a bad experience with him.  Only references can provide that kind of insight.  The ONLY thing PII gives you is the option, as you admit, to blackmail him if you so choose.  Frankly, from your post, YOU are the one who sounds dangerous.  The client's true identity doesn't matter to the provider, just as the provider's true identity doesn't matter to the client.  They can both enjoy a satisfactory engagement without such disclosure.  Safety and Respect are two-way streets.

none of that even seems necessary since your story about your wife hardly hinges on facts mattering. Oh, what to do? Blame everyone else? Whistle past the graveyard claiming you're now safe (I never give PII so no one can get me.)?

To a large extent, the only fact that matters is one's true identity. If one doesn't divulge that, one can't be blackmailed. It's really that simple.

Look elsewhere in this thread and you'll find that I did have my own blackmail issue -- with my EX-WIFE!  i divorced her after 53-weeks of marriage when I discovered that she and a boyfriend were attempting to illegally change the titles on certain accounts of mine, and they were also attempting to obtain a $2 Million life insurance policy on me without my knowledge.  I was flawlessly faithful to that woman.  I showered her with gifts and treated her like a queen.  I was genuinely smitten with her, but none of that mattered.  To her, I was just a source of cash.  Almost ten years younger than myself, she was a friend of my sister's, and I met her at my sister's wedding, after which she aggressively pursued ME, which is what won me over.  Anyway, after only a year of marriage, I was shocked to learn that she was preparing to plunder my assets and potentially KILL me for insurance money.  That's when I cut her off, retained an attorney, and dumped her, but that wasn't the end.  Sometime after the divorce, she contacted me and threatened to LIE to my employer, claiming that I had embezzled large sums of money and committed other transgressions if I didn't pay her $50.000.00 in cash.  I refused, and she made good on her threat.  I was eventually exonerated, but suffered professional damage as a consequence.  One can't trust a WIFE, so trusting a provider is completely out of the question.  All this happened to me some years prior to when my former colleague had his provider blackmail issue.  He knew about my situation and sought my counsel.  Unfortunately, not much could be done.  
                             
          Moreover, Trust and Security are two-way streets.  If a client is compelled to "trust" the provider, shouldn't the provider likewise be compelled to "trust" the client?  Frankly, neither should be compelled to trust the other.  Each is entitled to take reasonable precaution, but stopping short of compromising the other's personal privacy.  This is a very reasonable approach, I think.  As for me, I have recent, solid references and a host of whitelists from mostly well-recognized providers.  One notable provider told me that I had the most impressive collection of whitelists and referrals she had ever seen.  I had only recently begun to consider seeing a few new providers.  Since COVID, I've stuck to a few regulars that I've known for some time.  Anyway, I was shocked to hear some of the screening demands:  Full real name, verifiable phone number, Photo of valid government photo ID, work email, photo of work ID or equivalent, real-life social media account information, selfie holding up today's newspaper, etc.  One provider wanted a business website displaying a phone number she could call to verify my employment status.  Somewhere in this thread, someone posted that there's an ad on the DC board from a provider that insists on a photo of a recent pay stub.  All these demands are ridiculous, and I would NEVER comply, nor should anyone.  Anonymity is the only REAL security for both clients AND providers.

I have no scars, tattoos, or other identifying marks.  I really don't care if the providers discuss me since they don't know my identity.  Certainly, all women aren't out to get men, just as all clients aren't out to get providers, but enough of each ARE to warrant reasonable precautions,  the most important of which is maintaining ANONYMITY.  Anonymity is what permits each party to go his/her separate way without any strings.

dont even bother with him, he just comes here to talk about the same old subject and how much he hate women.

-- Modified on 4/19/2023 5:36:58 PM

I don't hate anyone.  I merely insist on exercising all due precaution, which should be in everyone's interest.

Ahaha just saw this.  I noticed lol