HER PRIVACY AND SAFETY IS FUNDAMENTAL
QUACK, QUACK, QUACK…
Her LEGAL ENTITLEMENT TO PRIVACY AND SAFETY IS FUNDAMENTAL and her MEDICAL and SURGICAL HISTORY is PRIVATE .
You are not entitled to it because you paid for 30 minutes.
Yet here you are publicly speculating when you don’t even know the facts.
One says PRE-OP.
Another POST-OP.
Both certain.
And the “consumer rights” indignation. ??? Really
“she/he”
“backdoor entry”
scars
erections
her genitals
“Thais cannot be trusted”
Consumer advocacy?
Really?
KATHOEY — loosely “ladyboy” to the West — sits in a very different cultural and social space in Thailand.
Then add the ugly Australian bit.
Male entitlement. Prejudice. Outrage
Because YOU are uncomfortable, YOU are somehow entitled to dismiss her right to SAFETY, PRIVACY and CONSENT?
NO.
You paid for her time and whatever extra was agreed.
You did not buy the woman. - You got a service. No complaint - Then later you 'found' something out.
Now you feel different. - Refund?
Or refuse to pay for an extra already received?
Seriously?
NOTHING ABOUT THE WOMAN CHANGED.
NOTHING ABOUT THE SERVICE CHANGED.
YOUR PERCEPTION CHANGED.
Yet from that comes outing, humiliation and a public autopsy of the woman…
followed by you all trotting about on your Olympic-grade hobby horses.
QUACK, QUACK, QUACK
YOUR OPINION DOESN’T CHANGE THE ISSUE OF CONSENT OR HER LEGAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND SAFETY
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pound4pound
Cumquat I like to agree with you mate but you’re wrong. We all know many shops advertise fake photos size, age etc etc.
But when you book a female you should get a female. My opinion. I have been with Sammy I knew in 1 second she was a ladyboy and I could have walked out and chose somebody else. But I didn’t and it was my choice.
She definitely must have her regulars and popular because she is still around. Some guys probably don’t mind because who would think a ladyboy is working in a massage shop.
But yes they must let customers know.
I appreciate your opinion and the IMPORTANT point you made .. was I saw Sammi and i chose to stay ,. You obviously found both her attractive and her service enjoyable.
At anytime did she discuss anything that made you feel uncomfortable or have the right to demand/ask she reveal to you anything of hers which is private and confidential ? No
You stayed you enjoyed yourself . You made a choice to stay, which is consent..
But you’re confusing two different things.
Misrepresentation and CONSENT.
Fake photos. Fake age. Fake nationality.
That’s misrepresentation.
Here, you chose to book her from her profile.
You met her.
You saw the woman standing in front of you.
You chose to go ahead.
She gave you the service you agreed to and paid for.
Did you enjoy it?
Was it what you expected?
Then later you “found” something out about her private history and suddenly the whole transaction becomes dishonest?
I could just as easily say:
I thought I booked a straight woman. Later I found out she was a lesbian. Now I feel deceived because of everything I told her during the session.
Weak argument?
Of course.
That’s the point.
It has about as much to do with fake ages, fake nationalities and fake photos as this does.
Your argument still starts with one assumption:
“A trans woman is not a woman.”
That’s your opinion.
Not a consumer fact.
And it still doesn’t cancel HER RIGHT TO SAFETY AND PRIVACY.
Her personal, medical and surgical history is HERS.
Unless SHE CONSENTS to it being disclosed.
Opinions stuffed inside assumptions, stuffed inside assertions — all masquerading as FACT
A fucking turducken of an argument.
Mr Bean should’ve worn it.
“A trans woman is not a woman and that is fact.”
No.
That is YOUR assertion.
You don’t get to prove your argument by declaring its central assumption to be fact.
⸻
“If a trans woman is advertised as a woman that is dishonest advertising.”
Was she?
Where?
Name. Age. Nationality. Bust. Services.
That is usually about all you get.
No “cis woman”.
No “female at birth”.
No “non-trans”.
You supplied the category yourself.
Your assumption is not her misrepresentation.
⸻
“Gender and sexuality are not like for like.”
Correct.
THAT WAS THE POINT.
The lesbian example was deliberately non-analogous.
Just as fake photos, fake age and fake nationality are not analogous to somebody’s private medical and surgical history.
⸻
“Finding out afterwards changes the entire interaction.”
No.
It changes YOUR PERCEPTION of it.
The interaction had already happened.
The service had already been provided.
Nothing about either changed.
You did.
⸻
Discussing scars is “like any other review of a working girl.”
No.
Noticing a scar is one thing.
Using it to publicly speculate about surgery, genitals and medical history is another.
We’ve seen speculation here about scars on women’s forearms and whether they indicate self-harm.
It gets shut down.
Quite rightly.
Why should that privacy disappear when the scars are around a woman’s genitals?
It doesn’t.
⸻
“Obviously you have a very left wing view.”
Privacy is left wing now?
Safety?
Consent?
Calling something “left wing” is not a rebuttal.
⸻
You are entitled to your preferences.
You are entitled to choose who you have sex with.
You are entitled to say NO.
What you are not entitled to do is turn your preference into somebody else’s disclosure obligation.
Your opinion is not HER CONSENT.
Her LEGAL ENTITLEMENT TO PRIVACY AND SAFETY remains.
Her personal, medical and surgical history remains HERS unless SHE CONSENTS to its disclosure.
So what are we left with?
Opinions stuffed inside assumptions, stuffed inside assertions — all masquerading as FACT.
A fucking turducken of an argument
Mr Bean should’ve worn it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
desolateguy
The transaction is dishonest, lmao fake age and photos are still represented to be female by birth.
A trans woman is not a woman and that is fact, sorry for your obviously left wing view.
Her right to safety and privacy? Giving a recount of my experience just like any other working girl on this forum.
She advertises herself as a woman despite not being a woman, that's the issue. Yes it changes the entire interaction because how many punters would never select her if they were actually honest about her being a dude with a schlong that's just had surgery.
Talking about his scarring is literally describing their physical appearance just like any other review.
The lesbian argument doesn't even make sense because in you're argument they're still a natural woman, their sexuality isn't relevent if she's delivering the service as a woman. Gender and sexuality are not like for like.
P.S. WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ANGRY ABOUT?
Did you find Sammy attractive?
Did you enjoy the service?
Because I don’t believe you walked out.
Are you now so affronted by your own submission that you can’t reconcile what you willingly enjoyed with what you later decided you knew?
Sexuality? Masculinity? Gender? Attraction?
I don’t pretend to know what preferences you conceal.
But something clearly changed.
And it wasn’t Sammy.
So before all the public outrage, indignation, cries of foul play and “consumer rights”…
perhaps ask yourself what exactly you’re angry about.
What happened in that room?
Or what happened in your head afterwards?
Caveat Emptor Been Around A Long Time
I've got to go with cumquat on this one. Your (2nd person plural) convenience doesn't supersede another's legal right to privacy. And since I don't live in Kansas, I don't see any official requirement to state "gender at birth" rather than "identify as".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pound4pound
But yes they must let customers know.
I'm a bit curious. MUST? Is that a national requirement, a state requirement, a city requirement, or perhaps a local council requirement? Or perhaps that's just your PREFERENCE (which carries, sorry to say, NO weight). You don't like it? What did Yul Brynner say to Eli Wallich? "Ride on". (Lazy, can't be bothered to find the youtube link). Oh, hell, too good to pass up:
https://youtu.be/1Ar5OdHtQrA?t=66
Quote:
Originally Posted by
desolateguy
Brother you've been here long enough to know that when a girl is advertised as a girl in a shop, that they're exactly what the shop advertises them as gender wise. This isn't an example where the shop says they're 25 years old but really are 35. Lying about gender is a completely different thing.
The shops with ladyboys usually openly advertise that this worker is a LB.
Advertising a known LB as a woman to swindle your customers is not about a warning label or buyers remorse. It's about being a genuine service provider instead of some greedy snake shop who don't give a fuck about their long term customers.
Think the OPERATIVE word in the above is USUALLY.
I'm not saying the mamasan is without fault, but... IMO, your anger, hostility, infuriation, outrage, is partly being projected there when actually it's inward on your decision. You say faulty information, I say "no requirement to disclose".
While your definition is biological; others might go with identify as. I'm of the latter camp myself, and obviously I'm not the State. If somebody wants to identify with he/she/they/them/it, who am I to say different. And if they've taken the major step of surgery, they've EARNED that right.
Seems that many here are rather ignorant of Thai culture. If you were, you'd understand that there's another consideration, especially before seeing a Thai for sexual purposes. I book a person, I see a person. The shop is defining her as she identifies, sufficient for me. Many here just don't seem to understand the pitfalls of assume. If I think there's a discrepancy between my definition and hers, I'll ask (but, you know, I can speak, just lucky I guess).
Full disclosure: I'm not a medical doctor, so I have no idea of the chances of getting "cooties" while in close proximity.
BTW: It seems you yourself are a bit careless with identifications. Just because we happen to visit a few common web pages does NOT mean we're brothers. :fire:
DIDDLED DOXXING OR GRINDING AN AXE
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pound4pound
Anyway punters will be to differ and take sides it’s the way it is.
Enough of this subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GoldfishMan
....OP deserves a pat on the back. Thank you bro for giving us the information.... Well done bro!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
desolateguy
... I'm a regular here and have been for some time at Ada's establishments.... but as of late I feel like some of Ada's friendliness and helpfulness has worn thin. .....
To me this was the last straw, I've seen Sammy on the roster at her shop for more than a year so thought it would be fine to try.
Session was normal..... . The dead give away came later when I looked carefully at her pussy..... she was actively avoiding trying to show you her pussy close up.....
ENOUGH OF WHAT?
Some unwritten consumer law has been ignored?
Ada is dishonest?
What?
This is less about “sides” and more about:
MY beliefs about gender / sex / identity / trans are EVERYONE’S FACT.
Innit right, brothers?
Say it ain’t so!!
No consumer law has been broken here. No one was diddled.
Or were they? 🤔🤔🤔
Methinks WE are being diddled by OP.
Since around March 2026 he has repeatedly bleated about Ada — bad person, bait & switch, bad shops, doesn’t care about me.
Yet he keeps going back.
And for OP there is an UGLY IRONY, if he can see it.
He has identified as Indian/Pakistani — a category of punter subjected to some of the most open prejudice in this industry.
Yet here we are.
OP is big on assertions, assumptions and opinions.
Substantiation and fact?
Not so much.
How does OP KNOW, with certainty, that this woman has had vaginoplasty? Given Sammy would not let him close to her pussy..
Extensive personal experience with ladyboys?
Medical specialist in this surgery?
Diddled , Grinding an axe or doxxing ? You choose
Then the alleged Thai ML insiders who freely disclosed her private information — but conveniently can’t speak because they fear losing their jobs with Ada, or worse reprisals.
Convenient.
TOTAL TURD OF A TURDUCKEN.
And so many of you are happily sitting at the festive table ripping into the carcass.
What IS clear is OP had an axe to grind with Ada long before Sammy.
And cumulatively this teeters sloppily towards doxxing.
Do we still pat him on the back?
Well done bro?