1368: Predatory Faux Pro You Know Must Go | Feedback Friday

What It Covers

Jordan Harbinger and Gabriel Mizrahi tackle three listener dilemmas on Feedback Friday: a yoga instructor uncovering a predatory unlicensed massage therapist who assaulted 15 women, a mental health therapist navigating a deeply dysfunctional family dynamic involving an abusive grandfather, and a man who survived a Grindr sextortion attempt without paying.

Key Questions Answered

• •Reporting predatory professionals: When a licensed professional is operating fraudulently, file reports with every relevant licensing board simultaneously and include all available evidence — police reports, termination notices, written communications. Multiple reports from multiple sources force regulatory bodies to act. Also report to every app platform where the person is listed, set Google Alerts for their name, and post factual warnings on public review pages to protect future clients.
• •Legal exposure for license fraud: Using another person's professional license exposes both parties to multiple criminal charges simultaneously. In California specifically, relevant charges include false personation, identity theft, theft by false pretenses, forgery, and perjury. Critically, the license holder who knowingly permits another person to use their credentials can be prosecuted as an aider and abettor rather than treated as an identity theft victim, even if they claim ignorance.
• •Sextortion response protocol: When a scammer threatens to distribute compromising images, the correct response is immediate disengagement — no payment, no negotiation. Scammers rely on panic and compliance; they move on the moment a target stops responding. Report to the FBI's IC3 portal, notify the platform where contact was made, and make social media profiles private. Scammers have no financial incentive to actually distribute images once leverage disappears.
• •Going no-contact decision framework: No-contact with family members is warranted when three conditions align: ongoing serious harm exists, no reasonable path to progress remains after genuine attempts at dialogue, and no significant mitigating circumstances apply. Short of that threshold, strong enforced boundaries often accomplish the same protective goal without permanent severance. Experimenting with reduced contact for several weeks before making a permanent decision provides useful data on both personal wellbeing and family response patterns.
• •Intuition as early warning data: Physical discomfort experienced around a person later revealed to be dangerous — as described by the yoga instructor who had to leave the massage table mid-session — reflects what Gavin de Becker's framework calls the gift of fear: a primitive threat-detection system operating below conscious awareness. Rather than dismissing such signals, treat them as prompts to investigate further, delay recommendations, and maintain cautious distance until a clearer picture of someone's character emerges.
• •Dating mindset shift from outcomes to data: Reframing each relationship as a source of information rather than a pass-or-fail test reduces the psychological weight placed on early-stage connections. Entering a relationship asking "what will I learn about this person and myself?" rather than "is this my future spouse?" prevents projecting long-term hopes onto someone before compatibility is established. This approach also reduces the pressure that potential partners may perceive, which can otherwise cause them to withdraw before a genuine connection develops.