Thank-you ChanelofHouston

[albundy]

I guess this is a "chick thing." I can't imagine that any guy looked at this thread and thought anything other than "I want this chick on my cock." Her screening practices never even entered my mind at all.

Nor do I give a shit. I'll gladly paint her tonsils whether she wants an ID from me or not.

[Lena Duvall]

Messy, messy. I see how the original post was intended as a kudos, but that's not the only way it could be interpreted. In ways, it comes across as a backhanded compliment. More than a chick thing, it's a safety thing. Being reference friendly, I gleefully respond to requests for references as soon as I see them. But I personally don't give/receive references to/from those who are lax. Maybe it's my witchy feels, but I'm sensing even more foolery in regards to "anti trafficking" policies on the horizon. And the news today about Backpage doesn't help. Sex workers feel the burden of increased criminalization far more than clients do and that's just the reality.

With that said, the OP has this lady looking some kind of way. From a client's perspective, she is undeniably gorgeous and surely provides amazing services. And if she's got top secret screening practices, hooray for her. But the OP created a perception, which only she can know if it is or isn't true, that she doesn't actually screen thoroughly.

[Guest123018]

If anyone read my comment (post #6) t was not directed at Chanel. My comment is directed at the op. As far as i'm concerned he didn't do Chanel any favors

[Lily Kat Wood]

It sure seems like the OP intended to mention that he didn't have to go through screening for a reason. The problem is that his post casts doubt upon another person. That doubt, until otherwise addressed cannot go away in my mind. In this hobby it is a dangerous practice to be sloppy about anything. Whether that be the hobbyists separating their hobbying from their real lives or us ladies trying to stay safe. We rely upon each other to keep each other aware of dangers. If one of us is being careless it could hurt many of us.
If the OP meant this as a true kudos to her, he would have written a review and then mentioned the screening info in the ROS.

[ilovethemgirls68]

Seeing that he's new I don't think he meant to slight her. Probably just was relieved to finally be able to see someone. Any issues can be handled between he and Chanel by PM. She's been in the biz for awhile now so I'm sure she knows how to handle her business.

[albundy]

Originally Posted by ilovethemgirls68

Seeing that he's new I don't think he meant to slight her. Probably just was relieved to finally be able to see someone. Any issues can be handled between he and Chanel by PM. She's been in the biz for awhile now so I'm sure she knows how to handle her business.

^^^
This.



Also, Chanel will probably never even see this unless someone points it out to her. I have never seen her post in any forum other than the ads.

[Melissa Madyson]

Originally Posted by Lena Duvall

Messy, messy. I see how the original post was intended as a kudos, but that's not the only way it could be interpreted. In ways, it comes across as a backhanded compliment. More than a chick thing, it's a safety thing. Being reference friendly, I gleefully respond to requests for references as soon as I see them. But I personally don't give/receive references to/from those who are lax. Maybe it's my witchy feels, but I'm sensing even more foolery in regards to "anti trafficking" policies on the horizon. And the news today about Backpage doesn't help. Sex workers feel the burden of increased criminalization far more than clients do and that's just the reality.

With that said, the OP has this lady looking some kind of way. From a client's perspective, she is undeniably gorgeous and surely provides amazing services. And if she's got top secret screening practices, hooray for her. But the OP created a perception, which only she can know if it is or isn't true, that she doesn't actually screen thoroughly.

100% true.....
M.M.

[Guest123018]

Originally Posted by Lena Duvall

the OP has this lady looking some kind of way. From a client's perspective, she is undeniably gorgeous and surely provides amazing services. And if she's got top secret screening practices, hooray for her. But the OP created a perception, which only she can know if it is or isn't true, that she doesn't actually screen thoroughly.

Thank u Lena D.
Like i said my comment Is directed at the op (post #6)
I could care less if Chanel ever looks In coed, I wasn't commenting to her

[Lily Kat Wood]

Based upon the number of reviews that she has, I would wager that she must do some sort of screening. I over stepped saying that it casts doubt on her. For that I apologize. I get very passionate about screening and ladies safety. I let that cloud my judgement. This thread is about the OP saying haha, I've got a reference now. And a reputation as someone who doesn't want to be screened. I would suggest to the OP to get a membership with P411 if he doesn't want to share his information with us ladies. It will make it so much easier for you to see the ladies that you want to see and not have to share anything that you don't want to.

[gimme_that]

As long as the local cackling hens and crazies don't get certain guys info.....I applaud the dude for using gift of gab to negate typical screening. Very rarely do I have to use prior "vagina credit" to see new ladies. Every ladies screens different. Any chick wanting a full name,or work info won't be seeing me though most times. I'll make exceptions where - see fit.

Sometimes through reverse screening I know more about the person I'm meeting than I lead on. Always nice to surprise someone with some hidden info when situations and clever scams go left...........

[Lily Kat Wood]

Originally Posted by gimme_that

As long as the local cackling hens and crazies don't get certain guys info....

Let me cackle this at ya sweetheart. Since you don't seem to care about LEO having a presence in our community, we ladies take the the lead in keeping all of us safe. "Who cares if law enforcement gets onto a hooker board!" you say. Well earlier this year law enforcement found their way onto a very similar site in Washington state. They ended up busting hobbyists and charging them with pandering and pimping charges because law enforcement viewed these boards as a means to promote prostitution. I will do my part to protect EVERYONE here by properly screening everyone that I see. Oh, and they targeted the gentleman with the most posts.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...s-to-be-filed/

[wildwing]

I tried to see Mika couple weeks ago and for some reason none of my references got back to her in time for the session. Texted her back that I respect and trust her for being careful. I will see her one day when available funds and her schedule coincide. I've also seen Chanel but when I first contacted her I sent references. Don't what she did but I sure had a great time.

[Samcro84]

Originally Posted by Lily Kat Wood

That's why I thanked him for the info. I would definitely not see him knowing that he has never been screened. Nor will I accept her references if she doesn't do proper screening.

How do you know how or what she used for her screening process? Think you are assuming the worst that she saw him without any screening. We all know what happens when you assume.

Originally Posted by PayU2LayU

So the only way for a provider to screen a client is to have all of his personal information and references??

I guess that is what LKW is assuming.

Originally Posted by Melissa Madyson

Give the chic an OSCAR for her skills, but why are you throwing her under the bus and tell others she didn't screen you properly??

How can we trust this??

M.M.

She does have skills, very fun and sweet gal. I would probably think that a provider like Chanel would not need to care what LKW would do or not do.

I don't really care how she screened him. Will not stop me from wanting to see her when she is in my area again.

Sam

[Lena Duvall]

^^^^^ As you should. Especially since you've enjoyed meeting with her in the past. The minimally diverging points of view expressed by some ladies in this thread have absolutely nothing to do with this provider's overall character or the level of service she provides. All that is being expressed is that the OP conveyed things in a way that made it seem like she may not have thoroughly screened. Whether or not she did, her body her business.

The thing is, "her body, her business" also applies to Melissa, ~P, Lily, myself and all other providers as well. If some providers don't want to accept a reference from a lady when there may be a (mis)perception about how that lady screens, that is also their business. In a worse case scenario (which is too frequent) when it comes down to a lady being all on her lonesome contending with a dude abusing power, none of us here will be able to swoop in.

Some of y'all are really reaching for some "jealous" or "catty" dynamic that is not at play. It's a matter of different screening practices and how different ladies relate to their sense of safety. Personally, I make use of either 2+ references, verification sites (i.e. P411, RS2k, etc.) or full name + researchable contact info + verifiable employment info. I supplement this with other nuanced tactics which I will not share here. If a potential client is not able or willing to be screened by either of those three methods I will not see him. If a lady gave a "yes" for a potential client based on seeing said client without screening in one of those ways, I would tastefully ask the client for 2 additional references.

[1+1]

I agree that everyone should do some type of safety screening and it doesn't have to be anyone's business on how it is done.Giving away a safety procedures would be the same as giving someone a password code to enter the building.