Theiving Escort

[VaHawk]

LMFAO at the weak reply from Luke SF to his negative review. Wow, comes out and admits he stole money from a client, and thinks his justification will fly with any future client! Any client who would hire this guy, really needs to have his head examined!

 

"This is the second time I have seen this review. Obviously this guy doesnt like me b/c he posts these reviews that are not quite the whole truth. I have seen Tom once before, we met for 3 hrs and at the end of our meeting he handed me $200 which was $300 short of what my charge for that time would have been. He said I had not indicated that my time was per hour and this was all he had. I took the money and left very angry. So next time Tom called i agreed to meet and made sure I told him my time was per hour. When I arrived at the hotel I felt very odd and uncomfortable. He wanted to shower after I told him I didnt want to. While showering I decided that I did no want a repeat of last time so I said I was done showering and got out. He continued to shower while I put my clothes on and I took the money that was owed to me and left. I do realize that this may have not been the best way to handle the situation but I did and I left, accidentally putting on the wrong shirt.

Luke in SF"

 

Where are the other reviews by the client? I may have erred, but I can't find them. The escort, if correct, should have brought up the issue at the first meeting!!!! Obviously, the client thought everything was okay, or he would not have booked a second session.

 

The escort in this case is GUILTY of premeditated theft! He obviously agreed to a repeat session for the sole purpose of recovering what was owed him from the first session. Okay, given his premise, that is $300, so why did he abscond with $500???? In the most liberal of scenarios, he is guilty of stealing $200!!!

 

Too bad, we don't have a client review of the first session. Maybe the escort only did an hour's work? maybe not? Regardless he should have raised the issue at the time.

 

IMO, he is a real hustler who has absolutely no basis in defending his theft from this client!

 

 

 

:-(

[Guest DaveM]

I agree with you - I thought I was the only one who got that impression. I am getting ready to hire another escort for an overseas trip, he WAS on my list.

[+ glutes]

I am very suprised! Luke is (was) one of the few escorts that I have recommended in the Bay Area. What a pity.

[Doug69]

Obviously, Luke did not handle this matter the best way possible, but I think it's highly unfair to equate him to a thief, when it was Luke who was STOLEN FROM by this client during the first session. By taking the money the second time, Luke was merely taking what was owed to him. That's not stealing; it's enforcing a contract and collecting a debt.

 

Normally, if someone owes you money or defrauds you out of your services (as this client did to Luke the first session), you could sue them for it or go to the Police. Given the nature of this transaction, Luke could do neither, so his only recourse was to collect the debt himself.

 

Obviously, the client KNEW he was stealing from Luke the first time. He said in his review that he's 55 years old and hires escorts regularly - clearly he knew that 23-year-old Luke isn't spending 3 hours with him $200, and he also knew full well that Luke's quoted $200 rate isn't some flat fee entitling him to spend as much time with Luke as he wants - like some all-you-can-eat buffet. The client knew he could only pay for one hour, but he kept Luke for 3, and then refused to pay for it. THAT is stealing.

 

There's all this talk here about how clients should never pay upfront and how escorts who ask for money upfront are hustlers. But then, when escorts trust the client and wait until the end for the client to pay and the client STIFFS them, the escort is just supposed to accept it and walk away? I think the client should be happy he didn't get his skull basehed in the first time for stealing 2 hours of Luke's time and not paying.

 

Really - what was Luke SUPPOSED to do? He had 2 choices: (1) let the client get away with stealing or (2) find a non-violent way to get his money back. How can anyone criticize him for refusing to let the client get away with theft?

 

Finally, I think Luke should be commended for being entirely honest about what happened. Most escorts, in response to such reviews, falsely deny what occurred and accuse the reviewer of having bad breath and wanting to bareback or do drugs in order to discredit them. Luke was totally honest about what happened and explained his behavior. That makes him unusually candid and honest, and would make me more inclined, not less, to hire him.

[Flower]

>LMFAO at the weak reply from Luke SF to his negative review.

*****

>IMO, he is a real hustler who has absolutely no basis in

>defending his theft from this client!

 

 

Well here we go again, Hawk--maybe you and I ought to have our own crossfire TV show.

 

While there are better ways (maybe) Luke could have handled this, consider these factors:

1.If he really did get screwed the first time and cheated out of $300, then in my opinion it was no accident--what client doesn't "realize" that the hourly rate Luke has always advertised isn't "per hour." Come on--fair is fair, and in that situation, what is Luke to do? He can't call the cops. He evidently chose NOT to get violent (probably lucky for the client).

 

He is really powerless in that situation and if he had written a post here complaining, you for one would have said "once burned, twice shy" or some other cute homily in effect meaning "tough shit, but that's the cost of doing business!" And if he had asked for his money up front, I have seen your responses in the past accussing those "type" of escorts of being hustlers!

 

2. So when the client calls again, what's wrong with Luke thinking it's a good way to get back his stolen money/time--since there is no other way to look at it in my opinion--it was stolen, and this is what the law calls self help! But I'm not really sure that Luke formed the intent at that point even.

 

As for the $200 remaining, he went to the appointment and the client insists on taking a long shower despite Luke saying he didn't want to--and Luke does it anyway--to a point, and then says to himself "fuck-it." This tells me Luke was willing to perform when he first got there and it was only after the client starts insisting on things he doesn't want to do that he takes what is coming to him and leaves--I think he's entitled to the entire amount.

 

3. More importantly, Luke's explanation sounded factual, to the point and truthful. A lot of escorts would have made some very elaborate scenario totally absolving them from the situation, or simply denied it--but from what I've read, I wouldn't hesitate to hire Luke in the future--I just wouldn't insist on taking a long shower }(

[Doug69]

Holy shit, Flower - did you read my post and copy it, or did we end up thinking exactly alike on this issue? Please tell me it's the former!!!

[KY_TOP]

>

>Finally, I think Luke should be commended for being entirely

>honest about what happened. Most escorts, in response to such

>reviews, falsely deny what occurred and accuse the reviewer of

>having bad breath and wanting to bareback or do drugs in order

>to discredit them. Luke was totally honest about what

>happened and explained his behavior. That makes him unusually

>candid and honest, and would make me more inclined, not less,

>to hire him.

>

I also agree that I was surprised that Luke admitted taking the money. I'm not so sure that makes me more likely to hire him but it is commendable,,,I guess? But as VaHawk said, it appears he took more than was owned him from the first time with the client.

 

This review actually brought a few things to my mind. The client is a first time reviewer and many here have questioned the validity of some first timers. If the Escorts response had been different, I'm sure some would have pointed that out to question it.

 

Also, so many come to the Message Center and say "should I or should I not write a review" when something goes not as planned (i.e.the recent No Show Trip thread). Here something went wrong, the client wrote his FIRST Review, the Escort admitted it with explanation, and now we all can make our own judgements as to if we want to hire Luke or not. Hey that's the way it should work.

 

I think the Client should be commended for writing the review.

[Flower]

My response exactly--however, I knew all my preaching would bear fruit lol ;-)

 

Actually, I started my post and then got interrupted, otherwise the time stamp would have had us posting at about the same time--which is even MORE weird and the implications scary}(

[Trixie]

Although I can fully understand Luke's rationale,

I think the more honorable route would've been simply to decline any further appointments with this particular client.

This is a good example of that threadbare old adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Luke may have felt justified taking the money, but now this review is going to dog his career.

Trix

[BuckyXTC]

Doug69:

 

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

This client is very lucky that Luke was a decent enough guy not to do more than take the money. Maybe clients of this ilk will think twice before ripping off an escort, if it comes back to bite them on the ass, as it clearly did here.

[KY_TOP]

>3. More importantly, Luke's explanation sounded factual, to

>the point and truthful. A lot of escorts would have made

>some very elaborate scenario totally absolving them from the

>situation, or simply denied it--but from what I've read, I

>wouldn't hesitate to hire Luke in the future--I just wouldn't

>insist on taking a long shower }(

 

How do you know that the Escort's scenario is real? Maybe he felt he had to justify what he did and made up the "I was shorted by the client my first time" and this really is his "elaborate scenario".

 

Again, I'm glad the client wrote the review and that the Escort responded. Regardless of the criticism either of them get. No wonder so many Clients don't write negative reviews.

[Doug69]

>How do you know that the Escort's scenario is real? Maybe he

>felt he had to justify what he did and made up the "I was

>shorted by the client my first time" and this really is his

>"elaborate scenario".

 

Nobody can be sure about whether any review or escort response is factually true. All you can do is use your best judgment to decide.

 

Here, I have little doubt Luke is telling the truth. If he were going to lie, he easily could have denied the whole episode and blamed the review on one of the stock escort accusations against clients such as: "He's just mad because he wanted to bareback me and I wouldn't" or "He wanted to kiss but I wouldn't because his teeth are green and breath smelled and so he got angry" or "He was tweaking and high and I'm not into that."

 

The fact that Luke didn't deny the episode makes pretty clear that he's telling the truth.

 

>Again, I'm glad the client wrote the review and that the

>Escort responded. Regardless of the criticism either of them

>get. No wonder so many Clients don't write negative reviews.

 

You've said this twice now - that it's understandable why clients don't write negative reviews - and I don't understand what you mean.

 

Unlike escorts, reviewers here are anonymous. What would anyone possibly have to fear in writing a negative review?

[guyinsf]

RE: Thieving Escort

 

I agree with some of what you wrote, Flower, but I think you are off base when you say that Luke was entitled to the extra $200 because the client wanted to take a long shower and Luke didn't want to do that. Nowhere in the review or the response is there any indication that this shower lasted 60 minutes, so I think it's not particularly fair to suggest that Luke was entitled to his $200 fee for this appointment. Unless Luke really was there for something like an hour, in my mind Luke ended this appointment early and thus shouldn't be expected to be paid. I think his sense of entitlement to the additional $200 is probably related to his being underpaid the first time around.

 

I obviously don't know what transpired between Luke and the client the first time around, but to play devil's advocate a little I can imagine some scenarios where an escort will feel underpaid by a client when, in fact, the client felt like he was paying an agreed-upon amount. I know that three hours is a long appointment and so the following scenario wouldn't apply here, but I have hired a few guys who ended up spending significantly more than an hour at my place when our initial negotiation clearly referred to me hiring them for one hour. I was enjoying myself with one guy so much that I offered to pay him for an additional hour if he stayed. A couple of other times, I had come and so had the escort. I was still enjoying being with them, but I was okay with their leaving and wasn't doing anything to get in the way of their leaving (we were just laying in bed talking). Both times ended up with another quick sex-session before they left. Neither one of them mentioned the time at any point and I was quite frankly not really paying attention to the time. I paid them both their fee for one hour, as we had discussed. (Each appointment probably lasted around 90 minutes.) Neither one of them asked me for more money, but for all I know they felt "ripped off" after they left. I have also had a few occasions where I've hired guys who got up as soon as we both came, quickly washing their hands, dressing, and then leaving well before an hour's time passed. In those occasions I paid the guys for a full hour as well and generally felt like I got what I paid for, even though having someone bolt immediately after orgasm diminishes the experience for me.

 

I know there was a recent thread about whose responsibility it is to keep track of time. While I generally agree that both parties are responsible for keeping track of time, I believe it is PRIMARILY the duty of the service provider (regardless of the industry) to monitor this.

[JamesK840]

>You've said this twice now - that it's understandable why

>clients don't write negative reviews - and I don't understand

>what you mean.

 

So far, I've only written positive reviews. The one 50/50 experience I had with a 'board' escort I didn't write about. Because it may have been an off day for him but the review could aversely affect him for a very long time. Not to mention his location was convenient and price reasonable, so I was considering seeing him again, but I think even one negative comment in a the review he begged me to write would've precluded that. I would review a bad experience though.

 

Also, some escorts know where clients live, and for clients that are determined to remain discreet, pissing off a hustler could be a very bad idea...

[theDCeBOY]

yeah, but doug... ACCIDENTALLY putting on the wrong shirt? they just happened to have identical shirts?

 

i think (as he admits) he could have handled the situation better. i'm stumped over the whole shirt issue though.

[Kando]

RE: Thieving Escort

 

Some customers DESERVE to be treated the way Luke treated that customer. If I were in Luke's shoes, I'd do the same thing. Actually, I'd set up another appointment with that moron who though he could get away bilking me for $300, JUST SO I can "steal" the money I'm owed.

 

If you want people to be honest towards you, you had better be honest towards them. Otherwise, you're fair game.

 

BTW, I'm not an escort, but I can fully see the escort's point of view in a situation like this.

[KY_TOP]

>You've said this twice now - that it's understandable why

>clients don't write negative reviews - and I don't understand

>what you mean.

 

It has been noted many times by many here that they do not write negative reviews because someone here will immediately cricize THEM and think the Escort is always right. This is the perfect example. Criticize the client and Praise the Escort. The Escort admitted taking money from a client while he was in the shower and the client is wrong.

 

>Unlike escorts, reviewers here are anonymous. What would

>anyone possibly have to fear in writing a negative review?

 

The rath of certain people on this board. I've had many M4M'ers e-mail me about not writing about bad experiences.

[woodlawn]

I agree with you, Hawk, not for the first time.

 

We are constantly asked to think of escorting as just another business, and of escorts as businesspeople from whom we should expect the same ethics as from any other businessperson. Fine. When a person in any legitimate occupation feels he has not been paid what was agreed for his services, he tries to reach an agreement with the other party that will satisfy both, or if that is not possible he simply declines to do business with that party again. A lawsuit is rarely a practical option, certainly not when the amount in question is only a few hundred dollars, and the police do not collect debts. A legitimate businessperson does not collect an amount he thinks he is owed by picking someone's pocket. That is what one would expect of a professional crook.

[Doug69]

>It has been noted many times by many here that they do not

>write negative reviews because someone here will immediately

>cricize THEM and think the Escort is always right.

 

And there are others who will ALWAYS take the side of the client and say that the escort is a low-life hustler crook. Some such people have already made their appearance in this thread to do exactly that.

 

But, more importantly, so what? Are these people you know who whine about not wanting to post negative reveiws for fear of being cirticized so fucking delicate and thin-skinned that they can't withstand any disagreement with what they say - even when they are receiving that disagreement behind a clock of anonymity?

 

They want to feel free to bash and criticize escorts - who are NOT anonymous - but be guaratneed that, when doing so, nobody will criticize them? Isn't that kind of pathetic?

 

This is the

>perfect example. Criticize the client and Praise the Escort.

>The Escort admitted taking money from a client while he was in

>the shower and the client is wrong.

 

Actually, one could say it the other way around. There are some who criticize the escort and defend the client no matter what. Client rips of escort by making him have sex for 3 hours but paying him only for 1. Somehow, client is right and escort is wrong.

 

>>Unlike escorts, reviewers here are anonymous. What would

>>anyone possibly have to fear in writing a negative review?

>

>The rath of certain people on this board. I've had many

>M4M'ers e-mail me about not writing about bad experiences.

 

If something as harmless and insignfiicant as the "wrath" of people on this Board is enough to scare someone from doing something, then I genuinely don't understand how such precious little flowers make it through life.

[Doug69]

>Fine. When a person in any legitimate occupation feels he has

>not been paid what was agreed for his services, he tries to

>reach an agreement with the other party that will satisfy

>both, or if that is not possible he simply declines to do

>business with that party again.

 

This is perhaps how things would work if the business in question is a flower shop or a pastry stand or a capaccino cafe.

 

But why don't you go into an Italian barber shop in Queens and sit down and get your haircut, and then at the end, when they're done cutting your hair, tell them that you don't have the money to pay, and see what happens. I think they'll do a little more than "simply decline to do business with that party again."

 

Or get into a cab in any major city in the world and have them take you to the airport and when you get there, tell them you can't pay. See what happens.

 

Or go hire a lawyer and use him to draft legal documents for you and when he's done, tell him that you misunderstood when he said his fee was "$1,500" and you thought he said "$100" and that's all you're willing to pay. I think you'll find he'll do a little more than "simply decline to do business with that party again."

 

I know some people have a compulsive need to defend clients and bash escorts - but this client STOLE from this escort in the same way that you would have with these above examples, and expecting the escort to simply walk away from that and let the client steal is imposing on the escort standards and expectations which very few other people - understandably - would be willing to meet.

 

 

A lawsuit is rarely a

>practical option, certainly not when the amount in question is

>only a few hundred dollars, and the police do not collect

>debts. A legitimate businessperson does not collect an amount

>he thinks he is owed by picking someone's pocket. That is

>what one would expect of a professional crook.

>

[KY_TOP]

You ask me "what I mean" by my earlier post. I responded with courtesy and without venom. Now you know what I mean and you can and have spewed your venom. Do I think that Clients are always right. Definitely not. I've heard more horror stories from Escorts about bad clients and stalkers that turn ugly than I can count. At the same time when an Escort over steps certain bounds (like stealing), then others should be warned. The Client rightly told what happened. The Escort rightly responded. What really happened, I wasn't there, but BOTH admitted the Escort took the money.

 

With your rationalization the next time I am overcharged at the grocery I should walk out with something for free on my next visit. All employees that feel their pay wasn't right would be justified to steal from their employers. Wonder if a judge would accept that excuse?

 

Would I hire Luke? I don't know but I would think twice now. At least he said "I do realize this may not have been the best way to handle the situation".

 

Oh BYW, thanks for correcting my spelling.

[woodlawn]

>But why don't you go into an Italian barber shop

 

Why don't you see how many more bullshit generalizations you can come up with? You have no idea what some hypothetical barber would do. You just like to make shit up when you can't think of any real arguments. You think everyone hasn't noticed that by now?

 

 

>I know some people have a compulsive need to defend clients

>and bash escorts -

 

Who the FUCK are you to accuse anyone of escort bashing? In your previous post in this thread you stated that "most escorts" when confronted with a negative review will tell a pack of lies in order to discredit the reviewer. I'm not making that up, am I? You did say that, didn't you? I've never made such a negative (and certainly unproven) generalization about escorts as the one you just made.

 

>but this client STOLE from this escort in

>the same way that you would have with these above examples,

>and expecting the escort to simply walk away from that and let

>the client steal is imposing on the escort standards and

>expectations which very few other people - understandably -

>would be willing to meet.

 

As usual, there are some problems with your reasoning. One can conclude that the client deliberately stole from the escort ONLY by ignoring a couple of facts that don't really jibe with that interpretation of what occurred. Either you didn't notice them or you decided to ignore them because they don't happen to fit the conclusion you want to reach.

 

First, if the misunderstanding claimed by the client on the first date was a lie, if the client really wanted to stiff the escort on the first date, why not contrive to stiff him for ALL the money? Why pay part, as the client did? If you were going to pick someone's pocket would you take PART of the money in his wallet and leave the rest?

 

Second, if the client had deliberately cheated the escort on the first date, why in the world did the client make another appointment? If the client had set out to cheat the escort the first time, of course he wouldn't call the kid again. He would only do so if he thought there had been a minor misunderstanding that had been resolved with no hard feelings. If you went to your mythical Italian barber shop and ran away without paying after the haircut, would you go back again? No one would do that.

 

These facts simply are not consistent with your characterization of the client's actions. I'd have thought the inconsistencies were so obvious that no one could miss them, but you managed to do it anyway. Congratulations.

[Doug69]

>>But why don't you go into an Italian barber shop

>

>Why don't you see how many more bullshit generalizations you

>can come up with?

 

Oh, gosh - did that example offend you? I'm so very sorry about that.

 

You refuse to admit how stupid it was for you to say that legitimate businesses would simply allow people to steal from them when that is beyond absurd, and you have to nothing to say about the fact that most businesses would do no such thing, so in order to hide your inability to answer, you ignore the point and instead feign insult on some unsated PC ground. Boring, even for you.

 

> You have no idea what some hypothetical

>barber would do.

 

Funny how I have no idea what a "hypothetical barber" would do when some customer tries to get away with not paying - and my attempts to predict how they would behave are outrageous generalizations - but you know how all legitimate businesses would react under the same situation and are entitled to pontifficate that they would simply decline to do business with that party again. You should at least try not to violate your own sermons in the same post.

 

>Who the FUCK are you to accuse anyone of escort bashing?

 

I'm someone who reads your posts. And as many others have commented here, you have a compulsive, creepy desire to say nasty things about escorts and to automatically take the side of any client against them - most likely because you need escorts for sexual gratification and hate them for needing them. Don't act like I'm the only one who has noticed this trite but serious psychological affliction of yours.

 

>First, if the misunderstanding claimed by the client on the

>first date was a lie, if the client really wanted to stiff the

>escort on the first date, why not contrive to stiff him for

>ALL the money? Why pay part, as the client did? If you were

>going to pick someone's pocket would you take PART of the

>money in his wallet and leave the rest?

 

You call that an inconsistency? First of all, people feel much more comfortable pretending that they're not stealing (which he was able to accomplishing by claiming he "misunderstood" and thought that $200 bought him infinity with the escort, rather than 1 hour) than they do just outright telling someone they are stealing (which he would have had to do had he paid nothing). So it's easy to understand why he'd want to partially pay rather than not pay at all - it gives him an excuse as to why he's not stealing.

 

Second, I know you don't understand this, but most people enjoy sex quite a bit and, as a result, some people can get carried away with it. That client had $200 in his pocket but was so carried away with his desire for Luke that he stayed an extra 2 hours anyway, even though he knew he couldn't pay for it, and then, at the end, had nothing else to do other than to claim that he thought $200 paid for the whole week.

 

Anyone who doesn't view sex and escorts as some awful, sick, diseased phenomenon which merits self-hatred for wanting it would have easily understood that without my explaining that. That explains why you required my explantaion before you could understand it.

 

>Second, if the client had deliberately cheated the escort on

>the first date, why in the world did the client make another

>appointment?

 

Luke made clear that, being a gentlemen, he left angry, rather than confronting the client. I'm sure the old pig thought that he pulled a fast one on this young man, and eager for more sex, called Luke without realizing that Luke felt cheated. Then, he got what he deserved. Justice was served.

[Doug69]

>>But why don't you go into an Italian barber shop

>

>Why don't you see how many more bullshit generalizations you

>can come up with?

 

Oh, gosh - did that example offend you? I'm so very sorry about that.

 

You refuse to admit how stupid it was for you to say that legitimate businesses would simply allow people to steal from them when that is beyond absurd, and you have to nothing to say about the fact that most businesses would do no such thing, so in order to hide your inability to answer, you ignore the point and instead feign insult on some unsated PC ground. Boring, even for you.

 

> You have no idea what some hypothetical

>barber would do.

 

Funny how I have no idea what a "hypothetical barber" would do when some customer tries to get away with not paying - and my attempts to predict how they would behave are outrageous generalizations - but you know how all legitimate businesses would react under the same situation and are entitled to pontifficate that they would simply decline to do business with that party again. You should at least try not to violate your own sermons in the same post.

 

>Who the FUCK are you to accuse anyone of escort bashing?

 

I'm someone who reads your posts. And as many others have commented here, you have a compulsive, creepy desire to say nasty things about escorts and to automatically take the side of any client against them - most likely because you need escorts for sexual gratification and hate them for needing them. Don't act like I'm the only one who has noticed this trite but serious psychological affliction of yours.

 

>First, if the misunderstanding claimed by the client on the

>first date was a lie, if the client really wanted to stiff the

>escort on the first date, why not contrive to stiff him for

>ALL the money? Why pay part, as the client did? If you were

>going to pick someone's pocket would you take PART of the

>money in his wallet and leave the rest?

 

You call that an inconsistency? First of all, people feel much more comfortable pretending that they're not stealing (which he was able to accomplishing by claiming he "misunderstood" and thought that $200 bought him infinity with the escort, rather than 1 hour) than they do just outright telling someone they are stealing (which he would have had to do had he paid nothing). So it's easy to understand why he'd want to partially pay rather than not pay at all - it gives him an excuse as to why he's not stealing.

 

Second, I know you don't understand this, but most people enjoy sex quite a bit and, as a result, some people can get carried away with it. That client had $200 in his pocket but was so carried away with his desire for Luke that he stayed an extra 2 hours anyway, even though he knew he couldn't pay for it, and then, at the end, had nothing else to do other than to claim that he thought $200 paid for the whole week.

 

Anyone who doesn't view sex and escorts as some awful, sick, diseased phenomenon which merits self-hatred for wanting it would have easily understood that without my explaining that. That explains why you required my explantaion before you could understand it.

 

>Second, if the client had deliberately cheated the escort on

>the first date, why in the world did the client make another

>appointment?

 

Luke made clear that, being a gentlemen, he left angry, rather than confronting the client. I'm sure the old pig thought that he pulled a fast one on this young man, and eager for more sex, called Luke without realizing that Luke felt cheated. Then, he got what he deserved. Justice was served.

[Guest sucker]

Just to add my two cents....

I live in the bay area and the pics and reviews of Luke have been great....but i would think twice about hiring him now.

How can you trust him?

If the client ripped him off, which happens all the time, the best approach would have been to tell the client he owes for the last time, and until that debt is squared away there will be no more dates.

Obviously, since a second date was set, and the client was willing to pay all the money upfront (at least it was sitting on the counter) that should have made up for it all.

Luke is simply not to be trusted, whether or not he was right or wrong!

Would you want an escort in your home who feels he has a right to your money....because of past grievences...real or imagined!

Honesty is always the best policy!