This is what one user, posting on notorious men’s forum Punter Planet, had to say about his experience with sex worker Dallas Rayne.
“It was at this point I had enough and put her into (censored) and (censored) as quickly as possible so I could leave,” he said.
“I get changed and leave after 45 minutes, very disappointed. This was the worst experience out of roughly a dozen different punts, so I have had a pretty good run.”
Established in 2010, Punter Planet is a self-styled escort “review” website with 260,000 members where users — nearly all men — rate and describe their experiences with sex workers in graphic detail.
But according to Ms Rayne, 34, a prominent Melbourne-based sex worker, the site promotes harassment, bullying, misogyny — and worse.
“We all hate it,” she told news.com.au.
“It’s got such a bad name within our industry for this exact reason.”
Punter Planet has long faced criticism from sex work advocates who describe it as “dangerous”, but the “free speech” platform has largely escaped serious scrutiny.
That may soon change, with Ms Rayne — furious at what she alleges are a string of defamatory and degrading posts about her — launching a fresh bid to have the site taken down for good.
Late last month, Ms Rayne sought an intervention order against Punter Planet’s owner in the Victorian Magistrates Court, seeking to have all “defamatory content” containing her name, business and location removed.
“The respondent has been targeting, harassing and defaming my name and business via website Punter Planet … and hosting the platform to allow misogynistic, abusive and violent commentary about me,” she said in court documents seen by news.com.au.
“In addition to personal attacks, several posts falsely discredit my professional achievement despite them being issued by a recognised entity.”
The case is listed for mention in Heidelberg Magistrates Court on December 16.
Ahead of the hearing, a magistrate last month granted Ms Rayne an interim personal safety intervention order (PSIO) against the site’s Docklands-based owner, Daniel Jose Giambruno, 62, who goes by the handle “AndyJ” on the site.
Under the conditions of the October 29 order, Mr Giambruno is prohibited from publishing anything online about Ms Rayne, and was given 48 hours to “remove any and all posts … including any online forums which relate to the protected person”.
Breaching a PSIO is a criminal offence that can carry fines or up to two years’ jail.
Reached on Wednesday, Mr Giambruno said all inquiries should be directed to his law firm, Pentana Stanton Lawyers, which did not respond to a request for comment.
But in a lengthy message to users after the order, “AndyJ” warned that the “Machiavellian plan” would turn Punter Planet into a “lamer version of itself” by limiting negative reviews about sex workers.
“For 15 years, I have run a review forum allowing as much free speech as possible within an Australian legal context, which means it’s already restricted by strong anti-defamation laws, and criminal law for cases of incitement, etc.,” he wrote.
“Removing or editing content on a one-by-one case has always been a daily thing to protect the site.
“The bottom of the problem is that it doesn’t matter if I go to court and manage to revoke this ridiculous intervention order (which looks more than likely), but I will have to go to court to do that, and if everyone wanting discussions about them stopped or removed does this, it would mean my life would become a daily trip to court to revoke intervention orders.
“Not what the system was built for, but it looks like an interesting loophole.
“Some escorts have been encouraged to do the same, and to threaten me with intervention orders if I refuse to remove content about them. The requests have started, and we’ll need to adapt to this ‘new normal’.”
He said Punter Planet would implement a system allowing sex workers to request to be added to a “no discuss/review list”.
“Remember the motto, if you don’t have anything nice to say, just don’t say anything,” he wrote. “For the time being PP will become a lamer version of itself.”
One user responded by claiming Ms Rayne “clearly fails to understand that the plaintiff is a service provider and the punter/reviewer is a consumer”.
“No different to ProductReview, etc.,” he wrote.
‘Toxic behaviour’
Lana Lopez, 40, a sex worker based in Darwin, said there was nothing wrong with a site where people could review sex services but that Punter Planet’s users often went “too far”.
“I think it’s great if there is a platform to review a service like any other industry — it’s important for you as a client to see if the service is good, like any other business you provide feedback,” she said.
“But I don’t go get a massage and say ‘the girl’s fat’, or expose something about their personal life online. I’ve been in the industry for over 10 years and I’ve seen guys putting awful things about girls on Punter Planet. They don’t talk about the service, they diminish us in every way possible — they talk about our bodies, how ugly we are, they put us down.”
Ms Lopez said she was in the process of speaking to sex workers and lawyers about exploring a potential class action lawsuit against Punter Planet.
“We’ve just had enough,” she said.
Ms Rayne, who has also launched a Change.org petition to “cancel” Punter Planet, described the site as a “breeding ground” for misogyny and unacceptable behaviour towards sex workers.
“They harass, they stalk, they post our locations, our personal details, workers’ real names,” she said.
“They talk about ‘flip her into doggie and smash her as quickly as possible’, it’s foul what they say. There’s threads about how to demand unprotected sex, how to prey on teens that are new and don’t know any different.”
Unprotected sex was decriminalised for Victorian sex workers in 2022 but so-called “natural” services largely remain a taboo in the industry due to the safety risk.
In one thread on the topic, a Punter Planet user said they had only done it “once ‘by accident’”.
Another user replied, “Ahh nothing better than the feeling of naked (censored) in a (censored) for the first time. The fact that it is forbidden and accidental makes it all the more hot.”
In another post, one man said, “Have you deeply injected and c*******d any hookers? I wholeheartedly recommend it. Don’t be scared of diseases, demand raw and then fill their (censored). Fill up as many as you can.”
Previously deleted posts from 2019 showed users laughing about the murder of a sex worker.
“Probably a punter totally fed up with fake Asian ads,” wrote the user, who was subsequently banned. “Won’t be the last. That’s for sure. Let the culling begin.”
Ms Rayne, in her petition, noted a study by the Australian Institute of Criminology that found 36 per cent of women have experienced online harassment.
“Websites like Punter Planet contribute to escalating these statistics, encouraging users to engage in and perpetuate behaviour that targets vulnerable communities,” she wrote.
She has also flagged she will appeal to Australia’s powerful new eSafety Commissioner.
“eSafety does not have powers to remove entire websites under the Online Safety Act,” a spokeswoman said in a statement.
“What eSafety can do under the Act is assess whether content targeting a specific Australian adult constitutes, ‘adult cyber abuse’.
“The Adult Cyber Abuse scheme gives Australian adults who are targeted by seriously harmful online abuse somewhere to turn if an online service provider fails to act on reports made to them by users.
“Australians who are targeted by seriously harmful material online should report it to the platform first and it that doesn’t work to eSafety at eSafety.gov.au.
“The Act defines adult cyber abuse as material that both targets a particular Australian adult with the intention to cause serious harm and is menacing, harassing or offensive in all circumstances. If content only meets one of these criteria; for example, if it is offensive but not intended to cause serious harm, it will not meet the threshold under the Act.
“The term ‘adult cyber abuse’ is reserved for the most severely abusive material that is intended to cause serious psychological or physical harm. This may include content that sets out realistic threats, places people in danger, and is excessively malicious or unrelenting.
“Importantly, the scheme does not regulate hurt feelings, reputational damage or strong opinions.
“After receiving a report and identifying serious adult cyber abuse, eSafety has powers under the Act to direct the removal of this material. eSafety makes its regulatory decisions impartially and in accordance with the legislative criteria prescribed in the Act.
“While the threshold for Adult Cyber Abuse is set deliberately high to protect freedom of speech, eSafety has a strong track record — close to 90 per cent — in securing removal of violative content and conduct and we are committed to maintaining these levels of harm remediation for Australians, regardless of the platform concerned.”
