How to run a P4P board — ladies’ participation (fifth in a continuing series)

Previous posts in the series:

• Introduction
• Staff actions

• Cyberstalking
• Off-the-board actions/disputes 

  I think I said this earlier, but a reminder might be in order.  These are MY opinions, and YOMV.  Why should you give any creedence to my opinions?  My participation with P4P boards has been less than a lot of guys, and I haven’t even seen as much as many guys.  I have an account at YMWV and HornDog, but haven’t posted and rarely read there.  I was a member, and posted occasionally, at AHC but deleted my accounts there, although I still read out of curiosity.  I’ve been a member of ASPD for about five and a half years (and volunteered as a moderator for a year), although I just read and rarely participate these days.  All of this is certainly less “board experience” than that of a lot of guys out there.

Signature lines?

OK, some people have long signature blocks for their posts on review/discussion boards.  Particularly the ladies, who can use it to reference their websites, contact information, reviews, etc. — indirect marketing — as well as to express their personality.  *shrug*  Sometimes they get to the point I consider excessive . . . although despite this comment (that seems to be aimed at me)

I also feel this particular person doesn’t like the opinions of others and is given to picking at petty things, like signature lines. TURN THE DARN THINGS OFF IF YOU DON’T LIKE THEM!! If you don’t want to do that, scroll past them, it is very easy to do. Being able to express oneself is very important, at least to me it is anyway. I like my signature line.

. . . I don’t recall ever advocating that long signature lines should be prohibited.  *shrug*  Maybe I did, but I don’t recall it; memory is one of the first things to go.    I may not like all of the long signature blocks, and wish that people would voluntarily restrain themselves, but it’s a free country.  Hell, mine on ASPD is fairly long as well.

But it is amusing, after reading that as well as another post on AHC complaining when ASPD instituted a rule limiting signature blocks to 10 lines (here and following posts), to see that AHC is now being even more restrictive:

Sig lines needs to be NOT more than 3 lines

Hey, I understand their perspective from a few months ago and I understand their perspective today with the new changes.  Neither is “wrong.”  As far as personal preference, I would probably lean more to the former — let people put whatever they want.  Not sure why AHC is changing now; system constraints/costs, or member complaints, or what. 

In any event, “why” isn’t that important.  Nor is “what.”  I find this amusing and bring it up primarily as an illustration.  Disagreeing with rules or opposing viewpoints is normal, but if your disagreement is too forceful . . . it looks a little bit silly if you embrace that same rule or viewpoint.  Not hypocritical per se, but perhaps that a less adamant opinion would have been more appropriate if not considering everything that later lead to the change.  Restraint in comments reduces the risk of having to eat your words later.    Something everyone (yes, myself included) would be better off remembering.

AHC is, though, making changes and trying to improve.  Not sure how successful they will be in building something that will dramatically increase their membership (e.g., to the 20,000-25,000 member range) . . . but you gotta give them credit for trying.  Even if they’re not to the point where I have any interest in re-joining.

I’m growing less and less fond of this term

I’ve used it myself in reviews, although lately I’ve tried to qualify it, but lately it grates a bit, although intended as a compliment.  The term is “not a clockwatcher,” or similar comments about the lady spending more time than scheduled with the client.  (I’ve mentioned this before, but just was reminded again when reading a review this morning.)

Sure, absolutely, guys like “extra time” gratis at the end of the session.  Not even necessarily for the sweaty fun; for many of us, just cuddling and chatting is a lot of fun.  Not to mention that it enhances the illusion that she really enjoys her time with us, and that’s always a nice ego-stroke.  So I understand when guys mention it in reviews.  It is, mostly, intended as a compliment.

But . . .

1. YMMV, and the next guy to see her may not receive the same treatment (whether due to her reaction to him, or because she has plans or places to be that did not affect the session reviewed); and
2. The emphasis we place on it may come across as indirect, subtle pressure — that we expect a one hour session to really be one and a half hours or two hours, at the same rate as for one hour.

These days, I try to comment on her attitude — that she doesn’t seem in a rush to get me out the door — rather than focus too much on the length of time.  But I’ve never really discussed this with any of the ladies, and I don’t really know their preference for reviews of sessions in which they choose to extend the session a bit without expecting extra compensation.  Do they like reviewers to mention extra uncompensated time, for the favorable impression it creates with readers (and hopefully additional business)?  Or do they see it as pressure for extra uncompensated time and/or the creation of expectations they may not want to meet?  Probably the answer differs from lady to lady.  If I were to guess, I might conclude that a majority of the ladies do not welcome such comments . . . but I don’t really know.

Two versions

I’m not exactly sure why it works this way, but this blog is viewable in two different versions: Geocities, and Yahoo 360.  (Yeah, I know they’re related; just not sure why they don’t just use a single format.)  The former has some additional content I put together on a lark; the latter has better functionality (tags; list of entries by date on a calendar), and Caitie thinks it is more attractive.    Other than Caitie, I’m not sure who would prefer which, but both pathways are being used, from what I can tell.  I recently changed the link on my ASPD profile, and internal links (to earlier posts) to go to the latter.

I’m sure there are other platforms that have more functionality or are easier to deal with — this is still pretty primitive in many ways — but are probably beyond my limited technical capability.  Not to mention losing content if transferring over to another platform.  So, what you see is what you get. 

Escorts of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your . . .

Nia has an entry on her blog about the right to unionize.  It’s also one of the objectives of the North American Task Force on Prostitution:

ensure the right of prostitutes and other sex workers to bargain with their employers, when they work for third parties, in order to improve their working conditions

That is, a union to negotiate between escorts and agencies, rather than between escorts and clients.  The article Nia linked to also made clear that this concept should/could apply even if the escort is classified as self-employed and paying the agency a fee for services.  Makes sense, because many times the agency still have a lot of control in such situations despite the formal relationship.

An interesting concept, although for it to work here, we would first probably have to have legalization to put us on the same basis as the UK. 

The idea struck as a bit odd when I first read it, perhaps because I think in terms of “independents” rather than “agencies” — and for the former, there is no one to whom a union could represent them other than clients.  An agency may have unequal bargaining power with the escorts and a union could help restore the balance, but can you ever eliminate inequalities of bargaining power between buyer and seller?  (In general, leaving aside the whole issue of the leverage clients can exert as a result of the reviews on public boards.)

Some ladies occasionally talk about the possibility of collective action of some sort, basically trying to band together and agree to insist on certain things from clients.  (For example, to support higher rates.)  The usual reaction is “it’ll never work,” primarily because there are relatively low barriers to entry (really?) and there will always be some lady willing to deviate from the group in order to attract more business.  On the other hand, “bad client lists” are certainly an example of such collective action.  Not all ladies participate and some will be willing to see a guy even after he shows up on such a list . . . but don’t they have some effect?

Improving working conditions for those ladies who work for agencies, of course, is nothing to sneeze at . . . but is there any way to improve working conditions with respect to clients?  Whether it’s to raise rates in the face of haggling, improve client behavior, or whatever?  By collective action, that is, rather than individual efforts.  The guys in effect have done that through the rise of the review boards, which in some sense has tilted the playing field in their favor (even without the abuses thereof).  Obviously — (well, in my opinion anyway – encouraging bad client lists or the equivalent (despite the drawbacks) would be a good thing, but how else can/do the ladies utilize collective action?  

I don’t have any ideas/suggestions to offer, just the question.

The psychology of a pre-pay

We often talk about the escort’s psychology concerning a pre-pay.  That is, she’s already banked the money, so is not in a hurry to schedule with the client.  A session with him isn’t going to bring in any more money, so if both he and another client want an appointment at a particular time, the other guy (bringing new money) is likely to win out.  And for some ladies, real-life stuff may be a higher priority than scheduling with the client who pre-paid.

It just occurred to me (I know, I’m a little slow sometimes) – there’s probably a distinctive psychology by the client who has pre-paid as well, isn’t there?  (Beyond the obvious of giving priority in whom you’ll see.)  If I know that I’ll have to shell out $250 for a session, I may be a little bit slower to call up a lady to schedule.  Probably wouldn’t schedule as frequently; I’d spread my playtime out a bit to make my $$$ last, even if I have a substantial P4P stash accumulated.

But if I’ve pre-paid for, say, 4 or 5 sessions?  I’m eager to get the “return” on my investment as soon as possible.  Maybe more likely to schedule more frequent playtimes?   (I may schedule 2 or 3 playtimes a week even when I’m paying cash . . . but somewhat less likely to do so?)  Maybe more likely to schedule a multi-hour session?  Somehow, pre-paid sessions seem to “burn a hole in your pocket” more than the equivalent amount of cash. 

At least, I think that’s what goes on in my subconscious. 

Conventional wisdom

says that if you “loan” an escort $$$ or “pre-pay” for sessions, it won’t be repaid, either in cash or visits.  Same when she offers a free session to make up for service problems.  She will always be too short of cash to pay it back, and clients bringing new money to a session will always be higher priority than seeing someone whose money she already has.

My admittedly infrequent experience to date has been somewhat mixed, but more positive than conventional wisdom.  Loans/pre-pays?  Always have been repaid, in cash or free visits.  Offered discounts for future sessions, due to service problems?  Always honored.  Offered free future sessions, due to service problems?  One lady insisted on honoring the offer, but all the others avoided me (and I finally got tired of asking).  Some of the ladies had a very strong sense of honor and integrity; some did not.

Now I find myself with a significant number of ”free sessions owed” from my two remaining regulars, and wondering how it will work out.  With one lady, I’m fairly confident, unless she retires.  The other could “pay up,” or might just never find a convenient time for us to get together; hard to tell.

If things go wrong . . . I’ll be disappointed, but not outraged.  Some guys advise to never, ever put yourself in such a situation.  I say, don’t put yourself in that situation without realizing the risk and being prepared to lose the money.  I did, and I am.  But I’m hopeful, as otherwise I may be down to zero regulars soon. 

Another new experience, probably not to be repeated

A few days ago I had an opportunity (extremely rare) for something I’d never before experienced in P4P.  Perhaps because the opportunity was so rare — and because other plans I’d made for later in the week had fallen through — I decided to indulge in an “overnighter.”  For a variety of reasons, it didn’t go as well as I’d anticipated/hoped.  No need to get into why and how.  The lady felt bad about how things worked out and offered an adjustment, and (assuming it works out as stated) I’m satisfied.  That’s not the point of this post.  But the whole experience started me thinking about overnighters.

I suspect guys think about the idea of an overnighter in two different basic ways: (1) primarily sexual time, i.e., a suck-and-fuck-athon; or (2) some sexual time mixed with non-sexual, social time together, e.g., dinner, going out, etc.  (The latter is, in some respects, an extended version of a similar service, the “dinner date.”)  I’m not sure which attitude predominates, or how common either is.

For a client interested in the first version, it probably seems fairly straight-forward — essentially a volume discount, isn’t it?  “Hey, I can get [12? 18?] hours of her time for only [4? 6? 8?] times her hourly rate — alright!”  I suppose this version works best for those who are young or who have enough stamina to actually “use” a high number of those hours.      I’m not sure that the prospect is very enticing to the lady, though, as non-stop sex is likely harder on her than on the client.

The second version is a bit more complicated, psychologically.  The client is paying (substantially?) more than he would for the amount of actual BCD time.  To some guys, the idea of paying for non-sexual, social time (in addition to costs like paying for dinner) probably seems a bit strange.  It isn’t, of course.  Yes, a lady may like our company, but: (1) this is still a business, how she supports herself, not a dating environment; and  (2) she has other things to do, whether P4P business or real life. 

[A brief aside: Some guys don't realize (or pretend not to realize) this, particularly in the context of a "dinner date."  Sure, in some instances the lady may want to hang out with a client without charging him -- but it's unlikely to be with very many of her clients, and it's very unlikely to be with someone other than a regular she's seen many times before.  If she offers, great, but if the client brings it up, he should assume that she charges for that.  Check her website, or ask her about the rate.]

Even if the guy accepts the concept of paying her for non-sexual, social time . . . I suspect that sometimes the “value” he perceives will differ from the amount she considers acceptable for giving up her free time.  (That’s fine, as long as neither side tries to denigrate the other — as “a cheap bastard” or “not worth that much.”)  But I’m also sure there are some guys who are comfortable with paying and who consider her rate reasonable.  But does the value from the client’s perspective depend significantly on the lady?  Do these clients just value spending social time with any attractive lady, pretty much equally, or is value derivative of a connection he’s established with her?

I’m not sure how often clients pay for an overnighter or dinner date.  Is this very common among the “non-High-Dollar-Hottie” ladies, say, those whose hourly rates are $400 or less?  And which client expectation predominates?  I have no idea, but my experience started me thinking about it.

————————–

Personally, I doubt if I will often indulge in an overnighter or dinner date.  In part because my financial resources (at least, what I can squirrel away without my wife noticing) are limited, alas.  But also because it’s not always the optimal use of my funds.  I’m getting too old and decrepit to get much “value” just from a non-stop sex-athon.  Actually, I may have been too old and decrepit for it 20 years ago.    As far as the social aspects, well, the need for discretion limits my ability to be out in public much with a ladyfriend (even more so for this most recent experience).   And for me the value of social time together is highly dependent on the particular lady.  With my ATF, extended time together was definitely a significant value; with other ladies, less so.  Doesn’t mean the other ladies are not “worth” that much; just that I would prefer to spend my P4P money on other things.  I’m not really suffering buyer’s remorse for this particular experience; I knew what I was getting into when I set it up.  It was an interesting experience, just not one that I will likely repeat often.

How to run a P4P board — off-the-board actions/disputes (fourth in an occasional series)

Prior entries in the series:

• Introduction
• Staff actions (general principles)
• Cyberstalking

———————

It’s fairly easy to conclude that the owners/moderators of a P4P board have the right to enforce guidelines concerning behavior that occurs on the board — cyberstalking, civility (an upcoming item in the series), flaming, false information, etc.  But what about actions that take place off the board?  To what extent is staff intervention/discipline and/or disclosure of such actions appropriate?  To readers of ASPD, this is the familiar argument about whether and to what extent the moderators are the “hobby police” rather than just the “board police.”  It’s a question that is often a subject of disagreement, but for which I think the discussion is often perfunctory/confused and the guidelines are unclear.  So . . . here’s my perspective.  As always, YOMV.

More about ladies reading their own reviews

Of course, the point was letting the ladies read the reviews.  There are entirely different reasons for restricting the Comments section so that it can only be viewed by the guys who contribute to the site by reviews or $$.  And, as Deuce reminds us here, the ladies can read the reviews if they contribute to the site as a Sponsor Provider.

After I read Deuce’s comments about the debate in the early years, I went back and looked for some of those early threads.  My search skills aren’t that sharp this early in the morning, but