Originally posted by Thorn
I don't know if you are aware of it. I know JL is, but may have forgotten about it and that is why he thinks this probably didn't happen. There is a whole underground network of providers hooked into each other via the internet. It is very similar, in fact it parrots, the same thing that had been done on the "john" side of the equation.
Within such ****** chains and websites there is discussed all manner of john activity. There is the sharing of known personal information of johns. There are questions to other working women asked of independents regarding the likes, dislikes, quirks and fetishes of johns they are about to see.
In fact, much the same way women in male revue palaces can act considerably more rowdy then their male counterparts in strip-clubs, these woman sharing reviews and other info on johns can be far worse then much of what is seen on PMB's.
I have witnessed some of the carnage first hand, so I know of what I speak.
John's should be aware of this and know that the only way to combat it is to NEVER cross reference the name given a provider with ANY reference to a screen name or board persona. This and to NEVER use the same name with multiple providers [particularly with agencies, who started these boards but independents are getting more tied in all the time].
If I were to use such services I would, with the rare exception of someone I believe I know well enough to trust [for instance, Cat_Ballou knows that Thorn is a specific person and can connect that person to a given name, as can April... though I have never actually been a client of either...at least, not yet] , never provide a board persona and each would get a different name.
Its not that I think that providers would have anything to share about me that would be unflattering. Its just that I think that the money spent on sex purchases things other then the sex itself. One of these things is the ability to remain anonymoous, should that be what one cares to do. So, for clients to have a review board of providers is one thing, as long as it is not mean-spirited in nature. Though honest and candor should be encouraged. However, for providers to have an info exchange on johns, other then warnings regarding dangerous or threatening behavior [I have qualms about the sharing of that info, and in fact that is what this was supposed to be all about, but it has turned into something quite different] goes against what the client is purchasing, and therefore becomes something of an act of "breach of contract".
Just my two cents.