word to the wise

gentlemen never send your pictures without being asked. Today one guy had sent me 6 pictures of himself. I have never seen him or booked him. I do not care what he looks like. I politely asked him to stop and he got all huffy and said well if you don't want my money. No hun, I don't want your pictures. stop unless asked for. I never chose a client based on how he looks and why does he think I need this many pictures of him on my phone? It just seems needy and vain. I just blocked him after that comment. life is too short to deal with vain men needing reassurance about how they look from strangers. I chose clients by how much of a gentleman they are, how they act and present themselves in texts and photos have nothing to do with that. If a lady asks for a picture then send one. For sure, not 6 unsolicited ones ever.

All of this... it's always the "hot" ones thinking it makes a lick of difference and they're also the first to say some dumb crap like "you should be paying me for this d*ck". Like sir, please humble yourself. That attitude is likely exactly why you're here to begin with. Smh. I feel you on all of this.

“Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go.” - Oscar Wilde's The Duchess Of Padua

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Transylvania Count

“Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go.” - Oscar Wilde's The Duchess Of Padua

---

Love this :bouncing:

Lucky girl...

I can't even get one picture sent to me to verify a gentleman and you get 6. Not fair :console:

I oftentimes wonder if there is an inverse correlation with how guys view themselves and how they actually are BCD.

Lately I feel like everyone has lost the ability to introduce themselves in a polite manner.

I totally agree. it chaps my ass when someone I never even talked to texts me something terse and stupid like "you available?" with nothing else. I just ignore those rude igmos. I have enough regulars that I can be picky on new guys and a gentleman who takes the time to write a cohesive intro with where he found me, how old he is and something that indicates he knows I am not full service and offer fbsm and fetish only move to front of the line. no desperate illiterate rude boys need apply. screening starts the first moment you contact me and I judge your behavior and how much of a gentleman you are by how you approach me. these clueless rude guys don't have a chance with established providers who don't have time for someone not putting forth an effort, introducing themself and acting like a gentleman. who are these desperate women who tolerate this bottom of the barrel behavior?

The pure arrogance of that just floors me. I know "to each his own" and all that, but I can't imagine behaving like that. Sorry it happened to you, Sue...

Some folks... *shakes head*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sue Nami

I totally agree. it chaps my ass when someone I never even talked to texts me something terse and stupid like "you available?" with nothing else. I just ignore those rude igmos. I have enough regulars that I can be picky on new guys and a gentleman who takes the time to write a cohesive intro with where he found me, how old he is and something that indicates he knows I am not full service and offer fbsm and fetish only move to front of the line. no desperate illiterate rude boys need apply. screening starts the first moment you contact me and I judge your behavior and how much of a gentleman you are by how you approach me. these clueless rude guys don't have a chance with established providers who don't have time for someone not putting forth an effort, introducing themself and acting like a gentleman. who are these desperate women who tolerate this bottom of the barrel behavior?

---

Screening is about safety so when someone doesn’t introduce themselves I feel that they are not a safe person. I have tried to imagine that maybe they are nervous and need to see if they have the correct number first, but often times I’m pulling teeth to screen. It’s as if they expect me to give them my address with out knowing anything.

Yesterday, someone texted me for the first time asking me about a list of acronyms. By acronyms I mean cw, bbbj, FS, etc. This could be a whole post in of itself, but I consider acronyms explicit language. Once the communication becomes explicit I’m forced to end communication. Maybe other women are okay with it? Being that it’s a felony in TX, I don’t get the risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lovingcamela

Screening is about safety so when someone doesn’t introduce themselves I feel that they are not a safe person. I have tried to imagine that maybe they are nervous and need to see if they have the correct number first, but often times I’m pulling teeth to screen. It’s as if they expect me to give them my address with out knowing anything.

Yesterday, someone texted me for the first time asking me about a list of acronyms. By acronyms I mean cw, bbbj, FS, etc. This could be a whole post in of itself, but I consider acronyms explicit language. Once the communication becomes explicit I’m forced to end communication. Maybe other women are okay with it? Being that it’s a felony in TX, I don’t get the risk.

---

You 100% correct about acronyms. They are a handy shorthand and time saving device, nothing more. Any one who thinks they create anything like " plausible deniability " is fooling themselves. In court it would go something like this:

Prosecutor- So you previously testified that the defendant used the term "FIP" in his text exchange with your undercover officer, asking if that would be included. What does that mean?
Officer- In my training and experience, amongst the community of prostitutes and their clients, the acronym "FIP" is short for "finger in p---y". This indicated that the defendant was asking if he would be permitted to digitally penetrate the person he believed to be a prostitute."
Prosecutor- Thank you officer. No further questions.

And that is going to be absolutely admissible in court and is going to be damning in the mind of a jury. So, in my mind, I can absolutely understand why a Hobby Lady would regard such acronyms as "explicit talk", especially with a stranger. Play it safe folks.

Hell, I tend to avoid explicit talk even when texting ladies I have a good standing relationship with. If I DO talk about sex its always after the fact and I try to word it as it it were a non-commercial act as part of a legitimate girlfriend situation.

Does that make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuirassier1812

You 100% correct about acronyms. They are a handy shorthand and time saving device, nothing more. Any one who thinks they create anything like " plausible deniability " is fooling themselves. In court it would go something like this:

Prosecutor- So you previously testified that the defendant used the term "FIP" in his text exchange with your undercover officer, asking if that would be included. What does that mean?
Officer- In my training and experience, amongst the community of prostitutes and their clients, the acronym "FIP" is short for "finger in p---y". This indicated that the defendant was asking if he would be permitted to digitally penetrate the person he believed to be a prostitute."
Prosecutor- Thank you officer. No further questions.

And that is going to be absolutely admissible in court and is going to be damning in the mind of a jury. So, in my mind, I can absolutely understand why a Hobby Lady would regard such acronyms as "explicit talk", especially with a stranger. Play it safe folks.

Hell, I tend to avoid explicit talk even when texting ladies I have a good standing relationship with. If I DO talk about sex its always after the fact and I try to word it as it it were a non-commercial act as part of a legitimate girlfriend situation.

Does that make sense?

---

Yeah, using initialisms is up there with "are u a cop, cuz u can't lie if u are!" I never use initialisms or any wording remotely connected with sex. It's just about what day and time we can meet. Hopefully, the ad will spell out what's offered, but even if there is some question I still book if I really want to see her, and if it winds up being a disappointment, I just don't go back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja22

Yeah, using initialisms is up there with "are u a cop, cuz u can't lie if u are!" I never use initialisms or any wording remotely connected with sex. It's just about what day and time we can meet. Hopefully, the ad will spell out what's offered, but even if there is some question I still book if I really want to see her, and if it winds up being a disappointment, I just don't go back.

---

Like you, I would rather risk being disappointed in the few hundred dollars I spent for a less than satisfactory session than the tens of thousands spent on attorneys to get out of a jam I got myself into because I just had to know exactly what I am getting for my money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinMan

Like you, I would rather risk being disappointed in the few hundred dollars I spent for a less than satisfactory session than the tens of thousands spent on attorneys to get out of a jam I got myself into because I just had to know exactly what I am getting for my money.

---

Well put, lol. I've had some sessions with incredibly hot providers that were not that great and never went back to, but my glass is half full attitude afterwards was "well, at least I got to see her naked!"

Thank you guys for responding and making these great points. Hopefully others read this too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja22

Yeah, using initialisms is up there with "are u a cop, cuz u can't lie if u are!" I never use initialisms or any wording remotely connected with sex. It's just about what day and time we can meet. Hopefully, the ad will spell out what's offered, but even if there is some question I still book if I really want to see her, and if it winds up being a disappointment, I just don't go back.

---

Yeah, that one drives me nuts. Law Enforcement officers can and will lie to you in an investigation. They are given broad discretion by courts to so, especially in the sort of "sting" operations that are common in prostitution enforcement. But the whole "they have to tell the truth if you ask if they are a cop" is absurd for several very god reasons, but people persist in believing it and repeating it as true. Now, asking if the other party is a cop is of use in a face to face interaction as a perceptive person can sometimes detect deception through body language, inflection, etc. But asking it via text is a pointless waste of time. Finally, the "are you a cop?" question can bite you on the butt in court. It's unlikely to be used as an argument by a prosecutor, but many jurors are going to ask themselves. "So why did the defendant ask that? Why would he have concern if the girl was a cop? What is he afraid of?".

Its human nature I suppose. There are always people who are going to believe in things that are transparently not true, and/or a bit nutty. See Flat Earth Theorists and Sovereign Citizens.

On the other hand the " show me yours and ill show you mine" is probably a better test. You know the whole " I need you to reach over and touch my boob and I'm going to touch your crotch." Sort of thing. I've never heard of an undercover or sting "bait" girl doing that. But I may very well be wrong? Anyone have any insight on that?

One quick amusing anecdote in regards to the "are you a cop?" question. Back around 2001 I had a street walker approach me and strike up a conversation. At one point she asked me "Honey are you a cop?". Being youngish and naive on the subject I thought I was being funny and replied " Why? Do I look like a cop too you?". She looked at me for a moment and said "Well, now that you mention it, you do!". At the time I was six foot tall, with a large frame and was in reasonably good shape.. I was clean shaven and wore my hair in a severe " buzz cut". Woops!

Yes, I have heard of cops allowing touching before the arrest. Who makes the first move may determine entrapment, but ladies have reported that it happens.

There is an "Add to Ignore List" feature on OH2. May I suggest using it and block the phone number on your phone. Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinMan

Yes, I have heard of cops allowing touching before the arrest. Who makes the first move may determine entrapment, but ladies have reported that it happens.

---

Interesting.
I had never heard of that. I was under the impression that undercovers could not engage in any sexual contact with during an investigation. Lol. Here am I falling into the very thing I warned against: Uncritically believing "common knowledge!":oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinMan

Yes, I have heard of cops allowing touching before the arrest. Who makes the first move may determine entrapment, but ladies have reported that it happens.

---

Is that both ways? Female decoy cops will allow touching or viewing? We know male cops will do anything lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja22

Is that both ways? Female decoy cops will allow touching or viewing? We know male cops will do anything lol.

---

I have never seen this confirmed, but I do not think departments will ask their female cops to do what some men will do.