Encounter: Sun Massage

[PhoK]

Date: Week of Dec 8th
Name: Lola
Address and Phone: -
Address: Garden Ridge & Flower Mound Rd.
Phone: 214-513-4545
City: Flower Mound
State: Texas
Email Address: -
URL / Website: -
Activities: Average Massage, All the L's, MISH
Hair Length and Color: Just past shoulders, black
Age: Mid 40's
Smoking Status: I Couldn't Tell
Ethnic Background: Chinese
Physical Description: 5' 2" petite , B-cup, average face
Recommendation: Yes

[haskellham]

Again, people need to stop listing the explicit activities that they may or may not have experienced and just put "see ROS", especially in municipalities with extremely high LE activity like Lewisville. This is why I rarely post AMP reviews anymore, cause I know one of you smooth brains will soon visit, write about all the details in publicly visible sections of the forum, get LE attention on it and shut the place down.

The standard for reviews should be no explicit details in any publicly visible sections of the forum, and scrambling the phone numbers with verbal text (e.g. 2one4-five13-4545) so that the eccie review doesn't show up on a google search.

[Easternwest]

I’m to the point I hesitate to post the goods in ROS as well because it doesn’t take much to get access. I definitely don’t post if the lady puts the shhh sign or says something, etc.

[poon_69]

If LE sees it on here they are smart enough to get ROS and anything on here is a strong hint anyway anyways

[Someoneintx]

omitting detailed activities doesn’t deter LE, does’t take a genius to spot a provider or spa that’s offering more than just a massage, posting traffic is a dead giveaway.

[haskellham]

Originally Posted by Someoneintx

omitting detailed activities doesn’t deter LE, does’t take a genius to spot a provider or spa that’s offering more than just a massage, posting traffic is a dead giveaway.

It certainly does help. The main pathways that AMPs get busted are currently:

• Nosy Karen sees a bunch of men going into an AMP, convinces herself that these women are trafficked (when in actuality they're just businesswoman that're very clear on the financial advantages of sex work), and files a complaint with the local PD. Karens aren't typically sophisticated and will just google the place, and if they see eccie reviews with publicly visible explicit information that's going to be a problem. This is what caused Lewisville to launch their raids a few years ago because a Karen threw a giant fuss and forced the local PD's hand:
  
  https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/lo...6-8d1c37af296d
  
  However, if the reviewer scrambles the phone number of the place and is careful not to expose info publicly, then the Karen will not see any eccie reviews when googling the place, and in the off change that they do come across the review all they'd see is that someone visited that place at a certain date and nothing else.
  
  
  
• Police see a bunch of reviews on a place. But they're not stupid, they know that basically every single masseuse whether legit or erotic will give a HE to a customer if that customer is generously tipping, because the money is simply too good to turn down for the amount of additional effort that's required. Now a single report won't trigger their attention as much as it could be chalked off as an one time or opportunistic thing, but if multiple reviews of a place pop up all with the dirty details exposed then that spot gets fast-tracked for undercover LE to start investigating as it takes time for LE to visit in person, collect evidence, and build a case, and they'll want to focus their efforts on cases that are obvious slam dunks. Excessive reviews contribute to this, as each additional review adds to their certainty that something unlawful is going on. The best way to combat this is by being very vague in your reviews; it's easy for an officer to say to his captain "look this reviewer explicit said the masseuse $#cked his wiener and $wallowed his babies" and have enough evidence to issue a warrant, but it's much more difficult for that same officer to convince his captain if the review is more along the lines of "we stared into each other's eyes and felt the joy of several generations coursing through us". As hobbyists we can probably infer enough to figure whether we want to visit or not from the latter, but for a police dept that usually has several pressing priorities to tackle such evidence wouldn't be compelling enough to issue a warrant or start an investigation.

[Big b.o.b.1]

Hate to break it to you Bros, but the Vice squad has many handles on here and they just need one with PA to read the ROS and then send someone in to the spa.

[luv2luv]

I am astonished at the naivety of some of the guys on this site. Do you really believe that putting "see ROS" rather than listing activities protects anybody or limits LE from viewing anything? If you really do, please contact me. I've got some real priceless antiques I'll sell you for half of what they're worth. I promise. Would I lie?

[haskellham]

Originally Posted by haskellham

It certainly does help. The main pathways that AMPs get busted are currently:

• Nosy Karen sees a bunch of men going into an AMP, convinces herself that these women are trafficked (when in actuality they're just businesswoman that're very clear on the financial advantages of sex work), and files a complaint with the local PD. Karens aren't typically sophisticated and will just google the place, and if they see eccie reviews with publicly visible explicit information that's going to be a problem. This is what caused Lewisville to launch their raids a few years ago because a Karen threw a giant fuss and forced the local PD's hand:
  
  https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/lo...6-8d1c37af296d
  
  However, if the reviewer scrambles the phone number of the place and is careful not to expose info publicly, then the Karen will not see any eccie reviews when googling the place, and in the off change that they do come across the review all they'd see is that someone visited that place at a certain date and nothing else.
  
  
  
• Police see a bunch of reviews on a place. But they're not stupid, they know that basically every single masseuse whether legit or erotic will give a HE to a customer if that customer is generously tipping, because the money is simply too good to turn down for the amount of additional effort that's required. Now a single report won't trigger their attention as much as it could be chalked off as an one time or opportunistic thing, but if multiple reviews of a place pop up all with the dirty details exposed then that spot gets fast-tracked for undercover LE to start investigating as it takes time for LE to visit in person, collect evidence, and build a case, and they'll want to focus their efforts on cases that are obvious slam dunks. Excessive reviews contribute to this, as each additional review adds to their certainty that something unlawful is going on. The best way to combat this is by being very vague in your reviews; it's easy for an officer to say to his captain "look this reviewer explicit said the masseuse $#cked his wiener and $wallowed his babies" and have enough evidence to issue a warrant, but it's much more difficult for that same officer to convince his captain if the review is more along the lines of "we stared into each other's eyes and felt the joy of several generations coursing through us". As hobbyists we can probably infer enough to figure whether we want to visit or not from the latter, but for a police dept that usually has several pressing priorities to tackle such evidence wouldn't be compelling enough to issue a warrant or start an investigation.

I know it's trivially easy for LE to gain premium access and read ROS. My previous comment acknowledges this but still makes a strong case for why scrambling the numbers and being more cognizant of what gets leaked publicly sharply decreases the likelihood of a review getting a place in hot water.

[PhoK]

I do like the idea of listing the phone contact with numbers and words, and if I could edit my review to reflect 2one4-513-454five, I would. The whole 'see ROS' for activities does nothing..