What services did she advertise? Or restrictions did she mention?
If an escort has restrictions such as no bbbj, only CBJ and at the time of appointment you ask and push for that. Then I guess that will be boundary pushing?
I got assaulted by an escort
- Thread starter christ6727
- Start date
If an escort has restrictions such as no bbbj, only CBJ and at the time of appointment you ask and push for that. Then I guess that will be boundary pushing?
There was no altercation. He initiated the video because he was mad she was asking him to leave and didn't give him a refund. For a service he wasn't even legally supposed to pay for in the first place.
People get thrown out early without refund all the time, there's no shortage of reviews saying this happened. None of those clients started filming the provider.
Are you saying that someone can scam people, take their money, and physically assault them with total impunity just because they operate as an escort?
The current 'no buying sex' laws are clearly being exploited by bad actors who use the legal stigma around sex work as a shield to commit crimes and avoid accountability.
Fortunately, the police officers I spoke with disagreed with your interpretation.
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that laws don't always equal morals and that unfortunately you went about this the wrong way. You also have no grounds for a refund for illegal services in the first place. Not that it makes it ok for her to scam you.. I'm speaking of laws and you're bringing up morals.
Consent is ongoing and if someone asks you to leave their home, you leave their home.
You can write a review and warn people. Filming is wild. There have been hundreds of cases of being thrown early with no refund and nobody posted a video because it simply isn't an intelligent thing to do.
The police officers you spoke with clearly also didn't think you had a case (by your own admission) so here we are.... They told you it was civil matter. That means they did not find the video conclusive enough to meet the threshold for assault and they have no proof of a criminal case on either side. But that could change if she contacted them, specifically because of things you said in this thread and because of the video.
You keep missing my point, which is a very simple : a review would've sufficed and avoided a lot of drama or the potential to backfire on you.
A judge would seriously question why you're not naming her/warning others if you claim that safety is the reason this video was filmed. Currently this thread serves no real purpose.
To be extremely clear I AM NOT in favor of scammers. My point is not what you seem to think it is.
Consent is ongoing and if someone asks you to leave their home, you leave their home.
You can write a review and warn people. Filming is wild. There have been hundreds of cases of being thrown early with no refund and nobody posted a video because it simply isn't an intelligent thing to do.
The police officers you spoke with clearly also didn't think you had a case (by your own admission) so here we are.... They told you it was civil matter. That means they did not find the video conclusive enough to meet the threshold for assault and they have no proof of a criminal case on either side. But that could change if she contacted them, specifically because of things you said in this thread and because of the video.
You keep missing my point, which is a very simple : a review would've sufficed and avoided a lot of drama or the potential to backfire on you.
A judge would seriously question why you're not naming her/warning others if you claim that safety is the reason this video was filmed. Currently this thread serves no real purpose.
To be extremely clear I AM NOT in favor of scammers. My point is not what you seem to think it is.
Last edited:
It's actually wildly ironic to bring out "impunity" while refusing to name her and admitting you didn't get your money back and the police didn't open a case. Textbook definition of impunity. Lol
Also your subject is giving the wrong idea.
I thought like you were assaulted without doing anything.
But the way I see it is you were pissed of being sent out without any refund, you threatened her and without her consent filmed her. You provoked the situation and she seemed to just prevent you doing it.
But let's take the different points separately, if you guys agreed of mutual bbbj and she didn't provided it, then she did not respect your agreement if any.
Anyway I guess we won't know the full story as it's one sided and it can be many possible reasons for her reaction too.
That was a non-issue, i was leaving and quite fast.
I understand that you don't like the idea, but it is legal and a good thing to do.
Thank you for worrying about me, but what I post is 100% accurate and for public interest and again I didn't pay for sex but for 1h of her time,. Then kicking me out after 10 minutes for one reason and no refund is one thing, assaulting me for taking proof. is another.
I did post her worker name on the review thread: https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/ts-chelsea-leolist.798218/
This post is just to have a dicussion.
Last edited:
So, to summarize :
The OP decided to have sex with a tranny guy pretending to be a woman escort (I assume he was fully aware of the details from start)
The interaction didn't go as expected, expectations weren't met (shocking)
Tranny got pissed off and asked client to leave and an altercation ensued over money.
OP got attacked/assaulted, whatever term you want to use, and was smart enough to get it on film (probably the smartest decision he made in this whole scenario)
Trannies behavior wasn't very woman like now was it?
No need to call for help, he can handle his own affairs
Yup, everything lines up
The OP decided to have sex with a tranny guy pretending to be a woman escort (I assume he was fully aware of the details from start)
The interaction didn't go as expected, expectations weren't met (shocking)
Tranny got pissed off and asked client to leave and an altercation ensued over money.
OP got attacked/assaulted, whatever term you want to use, and was smart enough to get it on film (probably the smartest decision he made in this whole scenario)
Trannies behavior wasn't very woman like now was it?
No need to call for help, he can handle his own affairs
Yup, everything lines up
She’s got some balls!
Well it's seem he provoked the "assault" more than record it after it happened ...
"when in front of the door before leaving, I said, 'I will just take a small recording to report this scam,' and that's when this happened"
"Quite fast" after taking the time to open your phone camera and tell her that you were going to film her....
It is not. You weren't in public you were inside her home.
You wrote a detailed account of sexual acts and claimed you were only 10min into the appointment, which strongly points to you having paid solely for sexual acts. Did you have a contract with her? Why not open a civil case?
Didn't see that, since we are on merb... Why not post a review here too?
Last edited:
I see in this thread:
"all looks and very bad service."
"Very restrictive, clock watcher"
So you looked at that thread and still go for it?
Its getting pointless but one last try to explain:
1. It is legal to record, even in a private place, if you have the one recording and part of the sound / video / not hiding your recording
2. In this case it is a very good thing as it shows that he was the one assaulted me
You weren't merely recording a convo you were filming a person inside her home. Completely different rules for both.
The "one-party consent" rule under Section 184 of the Criminal Code of Canada applies strictly to the audio portion of a recording. While it protects you when recording a conversation you are a part of, it does not give you a right to record video, let alone inside someone else's home.
The video came before the assault. You were trying to film for unrelated reasons and she assaulted you (or grabbed your phone) as a result of you starting to film.
Last edited:
All the "participants at the act" are hypothetically at risk - both the provider and the customer. In addition, the customer is at evan bigger risk, because he can lose money as well.
This is like complaining about your Android phone in a forum focused on iPhones.
Ok, but :
1. There was an initial reason: robbery,
2. It happened that I got assaulted just as I started recording. Was the recording the reason she assulted me? Maybe, but its certainly not a valid reason and it shows that she was the violent actor and makes my recording quite a good thing.
One more thing to know: I asked before the meeting if I could record a video with her and she said yes, I actually have a nice recording of both of us having fun. ... this was before the drama (basically her deciding "its over" for no reason at all)
Similar threads
