General Reports

[SecretSquirell]

My birthday is coming up soon and I'm wondering if anyone knows any providers / places that do birthday specials anymore? I've had a few in the past offer something like a discounted or longer session. I've had two different AMPs waive the house fee (still had to tip) also. In all cases I had to show my license to prove it was my birthday. (Showed it in person and I covered everything except picture and birth date.) Some places would advertise it but I don't see that anymore. Any leads would be appreciated. Post or PM is fine.

You may find someplace new but thinking you'd have the best luck asking someone / someplace that knows you if they offer that. Maybe even if not an official policy it'll get you discount or more time or services. Random newbie walking in saying I'm here for my birthday freebie less likely to get properly taken care of like a regular.

[Jack A Dogov]

My birthday is coming up soon and I'm wondering if anyone knows any providers / places that do birthday specials anymore? I've had a few in the past offer something like a discounted or longer session. I've had two different AMPs waive the house fee (still had to tip) also. In all cases I had to show my license to prove it was my birthday. (Showed it in person and I covered everything except picture and birth date.) Some places would advertise it but I don't see that anymore. Any leads would be appreciated. Post or PM is fine.

[Mattis1775]

Homie isn't lyin'.

https://youtu.be/1CuUCStaZSY?si=PcK_pRzQ8TH6jPvj

Love it! 5050. If the man is paying the bills, then she'll do her share by buying clothes for him and cooking. Yeah, what happens when the man loses his job? The Pig will say good-bye. They're all the same.

[SirRooney42]

Any tips on first time fun time agreements with the ladies?

I know avoid any deposits or the fake super hot ones.

Thanks.

[MeatMan]

Homie isn't lyin'.

https://youtu.be/1CuUCStaZSY?si=PcK_pRzQ8TH6jPvj

[Nrlmus]

This really vindicates those of us who strictly refused to send personal info to agencies and escorts. It is not the first time the info leaked to the police and it is not the last time.

I love the WSJ article where they interview an investigator who makes fun of the clients who where foolish enough to send all their personal info, calling them "brainy" professionals:

"Former vice detectives told The Wall Street Journal they were surprised at the brothel's exclusivity and organizationand that so many brainy professionals would surrender personal details to it. ".

From the WSJ Article: https://archive.is/wFJaj.

Wow, Fawcett St building next to that cannabis dispensary. I recognize it. Have been there few times. Visited Shu when she just moved there from the old place before moving back. Also Ruby who I think just did a stint for Boston International. Nice woman. I remember she cooked me some real tasty Korean food after the appointment. No, not Kim Chi or Bulgogi, some other staff LOL.

[Peter Johnson]

This really vindicates those of us who strictly refused to send personal info to agencies and escorts. It is not the first time the info leaked to the police and it is not the last time.
.

Yes, so true. I do understand the temptation, when you are backed up and not thinking clearly but I've never sent such info to an agency or escort and I never will. It's just too much risk, for the potential reward.

[Sounds]

Funny, that text from the agency that says only GFE, no BB. I thought the two were synonymous.

Is one of those terms that means different things to different people, especially providers. If one is advertising GFE, need to verify what she means by that.

My understanding of GFE is DFK and BBBJ.

[DarkClouds]

Funny, that text from the agency that says only GFE, no BB. I thought the two were synonymous.

This really vindicates those of us who strictly refused to send personal info to agencies and escorts. It is not the first time the info leaked to the police and it is not the last time.

I love the WSJ article where they interview an investigator who makes fun of the clients who where foolish enough to send all their personal info, calling them "brainy" professionals:

"Former vice detectives told The Wall Street Journal they were surprised at the brothel's exclusivity and organizationand that so many brainy professionals would surrender personal details to it. ".

From the WSJ Article: https://archive.is/wFJaj.

[Guillaume123]

This really vindicates those of us who strictly refused to send personal info to agencies and escorts. It is not the first time the info leaked to the police and it is not the last time.

I love the WSJ article where they interview an investigator who makes fun of the clients who where foolish enough to send all their personal info, calling them "brainy" professionals:

"Former vice detectives told The Wall Street Journal they were surprised at the brothel's exclusivity and organization—and that so many brainy professionals would surrender personal details to it. ".

From the WSJ Article: https://archive.is/wFJaj.

[DarkClouds]

I think you captured it well. I continue to be shocked by how dumb these supposedly smart people were. Especially the ones who showed up in person for the hearings. I suppose they had no guidance and went into it quite blind. I still see people proudly dealing with agencies, pros, participating in the street scene, using their real CC to sign up on sites, and so on. They are asking for trouble and playing with fire. And not only from an LE perspective but also in terms of inviting blackmail, fatal attraction cases, and so on. Oh, and I had to look up the Dudley Do-Right reference.

Any other lessons I may have missed?

[Hyperion11]

3. As I understand it, the MA statute declares that a crime has been committed once an offer or agreement is made re exchanging a sexual act for a fee. That crime exists whether or not the act is consummated. As I see it, any menu of services and prices sent to clients pretty much checks that box. It's hard to imagine any response, other than something like "Sorry, my mistake" (and ending the conversation), that might provide a client with an escape hatch. And, factoring in multiple text exchanges and visits, it becomes a slam dunk.

Say, once they send me donation and services (GFE, etc.) I reply with "I agree with the donation, but just to be clear, I only want a massage from a cute chick". Will that save my ass? Maybe, maybe not, but it should throw a wrench in the LE persecution plans.

[JmSuttr]

1. Trafficking is essentially whatever LE and the media say it is. Whether real trafficking (force, coercion, intimidation, etc.) is happening is irrelevant. Both LE and the media have strong incentives for applying the label, facts be damned. And the same principle applies to the characterization of clients as "high profile" (govt officials, security clearances, etc.) by the LE-media beast. They can lie and misrepresent and will never be held to account.

2. Use of a phone number, email, or other method that can be traced to a person's true identity makes that person the proverbial low-hanging fruit. Using a burner phone may not be an absolute guarantee, but it does move one higher up the tree and harder to reach.

3. As I understand it, the MA statute declares that a crime has been committed once an offer or agreement is made re exchanging a sexual act for a fee. That crime exists whether or not the act is consummated. As I see it, any menu of services and prices sent to clients pretty much checks that box. It's hard to imagine any response, other than something like "Sorry, my mistake" (and ending the conversation), that might provide a client with an escape hatch. And, factoring in multiple text exchanges and visits, it becomes a slam dunk.

4. Nobody in LE specifically set out to catch mongers. They were simply collateral damage from the money laundering case against the owners. But, once LE decided to thump their chest and show off as the Dudley Doorights keeping the community safe from all the Snidely Whiplashes out there (kudos if you get the reference), and once the media smelled blood in the water, the path was inevitable.

5. The same statute would be in play if these mongers had been caught in a old-fashioned street sting in which they agreed to pay $40 for a blow job to an undercover female cop. The massive double standard is that such an arrest would likely have been handled out of the public eye. Painful, yes, but probably not life-ruining.

6. With respect to the future, and this is important (IMO), a precedent has been set in MA such that show cause hearings are not what they were, or at least the expectation of keeping things low key might be at risk. Again, it'll be the LE-media dynamic that will determine the outcome. They won't be required to go full volume, but they can if they want.

7. PII in any form, once it leaves your sole control, can come back to bite you in the ass. Maybe it'll never happen, or maybe once in a great while, but the results can be catastrophic.

Discussion: There's zero downside for LE and the media in describing almost any prostitution-related activity as trafficking. Narrative is everything and facts be damned (or ignored). About the only thing that would be hard to spin as trafficking would be patronizing a true independent (professional or amateur). The solicitation statute still applies, but it's not worth the time and effort for LE to go after a single misdemeanor. It was the use of traceable comms PLUS the agreement implied by discussing menu items that screwed these guys. Even with that, had it not been for the interstate money-laundering and "trafficking" angle + media frenzy, things might have been different.

The smart providers out there will only say they're being paid for their time, nothing more, and any further specifics will only be discussed in person. Established providers have plenty of reviews such that there's no need for explicit text exchanges. To sum up, it seems to me that the critical mistake, more than PII or traceable phone or 400+ texts or video surveillance, was the offer-agreement implicit in the communications about $$$ for services. Without that, I don't think LE would have been able to make the case.

Any other lessons I may have missed?

[Hyperion11]

Have a look at the NY Post article. The agency sent out a whole menu of services with very strict prices. And I believe the agency kept detailed records. As a result, prosecutors are convincingly able to claim you paid X for service Y (which, by the way, was NOT a massage based on the pricing menu you were sent). This is why only 1% of the customer list were charged. Where prosecutors were able to put all of the ducks in a row and build a rock solid case. So, my prediction is that these 30 or so who were charged are going down. Again, this is why my mantra is: only deal with amateurs, never let your guard down (zero transparency), and never repeat. Sadly, this is the puritanical world we live in.

https://nypost.com/2025/03/14/us-new...ters-revealed/

Fair point, I guess it remains to be seen. I don't feel all the cases are that solid, but persecutors put them together just to show something up. I mean, if I get lunch at a restaurant, and the waiter presents me the beer menu, does it mean I drank beer? Now, if I ask for a specific beer, that can be evidence, sure. So, customers that specifically asked for BB or GFE might be in trouble. The ones that only asked 30 minutes with Jisoo, might have a change, I reckon.

There is a reason Virginia persecutors refused to file charges (but it is true the law is different over there and requires stronger evidence).

[DarkClouds]

Have a look at the NY Post article. The agency sent out a whole menu of services with very strict prices. And I believe the agency kept detailed records. As a result, prosecutors are convincingly able to claim you paid X for service Y (which, by the way, was NOT a massage based on the pricing menu you were sent). This is why only 1% of the customer list were charged. Where prosecutors were able to put all of the ducks in a row and build a rock solid case. So, my prediction is that these 30 or so who were charged are going down. Again, this is why my mantra is: only deal with amateurs, never let your guard down (zero transparency), and never repeat. Sadly, this is the puritanical world we live in.

https://nypost.com/2025/03/14/us-new...ters-revealed/

I bet at least some of them will try to play it as "yes, I was there, I enjoy a nice massage, but no sex. So what if the agency offers GFE or bb, I was just paying for (maybe) a nude massage". Let's see how that works with a judge though.