Risk Perceptions of Providers

I am another advocate of having another person in the apartment/hotel suite. I think that making your safety person another hot-pants provider is a fantastic idea. Someone else that is non-violent, sexy, and non-threatening. That way, someone is there to be a buffer for the really fucked-up stuff and it also makes the experience more professional. Originally Posted by JennsLolli

Of course, a real murderous whack job that had planned to do harm from the start would come armed and be prepared just do away with the both of you. Even if the safety person was a big burly dude instead of a hot-pants provider.

Liv, your quick wit on display here reminds me of why I like you so much.

While the comments here are mostly regarding escort security, any guy with connecting brain cells has a few safety concerns too. Early on in my hobby days I ventured into a few situations with serious safety concerns and left asking myself why in the hell I just did that?.... For me, a full-on, personal, endorphin-releasing, phermone-appreciating session is simply incompatible with scanning the environment for lethal threats. The human brain does not normally work that way (excluding a few pervs). And I am sure it's the same for men and women. Let us find safe and comfortable places for our fun!

I wonder if providers in this market understand how the hobby normally works, or has worked, in larger markets since the invention of the telephone.

This thing we do until recently was called a "call-girl service," and because there was no internet for "indie" girls to advertise on, to be in this at all every girl had to belong to an agency.

Guys would find the service number from a telephone book or newspaper and call for a girl. The service would take down the name he gave, number listed as the outcall location if not a hotel, and send out a girl. It was that simple. If the call turned out to be a sting no harm came of it unless two things operated, 1. the girl improperly solicited [upsold] or agreed to a solicitation [which is totally preventable], or 2. the cops were ILLEGALLY arresting girls and customers for merely showing up. This second issue can be dealt with successfully in a number of ways which would be a digression here. The other source of risk would be that the client is a predator. This used to be a problem for agencies before indies came on the scene because predators had no place to go to find girls other than through agencies or street-walking girls. Now that indies are around however predators are mostly drawn to them [rather than agencies] because they are easy targets..i.e. no witnesses. Very very rarely a predator will call an agency and kill the girl because he wants to get caught. There's not much anyone can do about that save have a bodyguard listening in the next room as dom services still do today...without the client knowing he's there [in case you didn't know].

"Screening" is a modern invention, mostly a myth, and a product sold to providers from companies maintaining clubs of members.

Until very recently anyone in this biz operated without screening, believe it or not.

Do any of us actually know of a dangerous situation that was prevented from happening because of "screening?" It's impossible to know, or to disprove any negative. Because of this lack of real evidence people will form differing opinons, but I tend to look at the way things were BEFORE screening came into existence and look to that as empirical evidence.

I am so with Liv! You literally have someone else safety and livelyhood in your hands and you dare say there is no inherent risk to safety!

Dare I say, craiglist killer! Dare I saw Mr. Done*** that everyone is on the lookout for that has never been caught.


Someone on the location, uh yeah I want someone watching and or listening to me have sex! That is a hell no working or not! Any BTW if the guy does have a knife and slits my throat how is screaming for that other person possible?

Don't get me wrong I am newbie and screening friendly just not a damn crazy. I understand that there is risk in crossing the street!

"Screening" is a modern invention, mostly a myth, and a product sold to providers from companies maintaining clubs of members. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I have always stood by the phrase "peace of mind is priceless."

Do any of us actually know of a dangerous situation that was prevented from happening because of "screening?" It's impossible to know, or to disprove any negative. Because of this lack of real evidence people will form differing opinons, but I tend to look at the way things were BEFORE screening came into existence and look to that as empirical evidence. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Of course your question is unanswerable, however, the last non screened client I took met me in the parking lot of the hotel (at the time I had thought to make sure I was acceptable but in hindsight I realized that he was checking to make sure I was alone), told me he was only going to give me half the donation, blocked the door when I tried to leave and put his hand on my purse, then tried to physically pull me out of the elevator when I finally made it out of the room. I had been averaging about one scary client a month before I started screening. Now, the worst it gets is occasional body odor and the occasional ncns.

In case you wanted my .01 on the subject.

I agree with TAE in almost all respects. I believe the agencies are LE targets (avoidable if handled properly), while the indies are predator targets. TM, I agree with you as well. I believe the women who become targets are the ones who do no screening whatsoever. If that's the case you start to deal with a different breed overall.

I wonder if providers in this market understand how the hobby normally works, or has worked, in larger markets since the invention of the telephone.

This thing we do until recently was called a "call-girl service," and because there was no internet for "indie" girls to advertise on, to be in this at all every girl had to belong to an agency.
Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Most people I know have been on the internet for at least 12 - 15 years. If you consider the internet to be a new development just wait until you see what they've done with that telephone invention you speak of.

I never said escorting was risk-free. What I said was that the risks are lower than ordinary dating, but that escorts sometimes "feel" otherwise.

I agree however that for indie escorts that they are constantly targeted for all manner of bad behavoir, not just physical harm but every kind of bullying and scams. This of course is because they are without support. They are on their own, and that's why I stated that if I were an indie I would only see clients in a house where someone else was present in another room. That would have prevented the dangerous situation described in the parking lot above.

In my opinion only a fraction of legitimate, benign clients are able to meet the criteria often used by providers in this market for screening. If you were to have an incall with someone around perhaps you would lose a few men who for some reason "don't feel comfortable" having another girl in the living room, but you would gain many more clients who either don't belong to a membership group [they are infiltrated by LE and predators anyway] or have provider references [unreliable to me cuz they might un-mask themselves only during your call].

I'm as concerned about security as anyone, for agencies, indies, and for clients too.

I had meant the topic to be about the different ways in which we view it, and what works and what doesn't.

As far as the internet being around for a score of years, call-girl services have been around for a hundred, and before that this thing of ours has been for, what, three thousand?

Carl,
Everyone who knows me knows I always have a lot of cats around because I like them. I wish I had your avatar.