Economics

Yeah, yeah, all that talk about “P4P economics” on discussion boards can be pretty damned annoying for the ladies — often it displays ignorance of the realities of their business and/or can sound incredibly condescending.

But, I just ran across this article on Slate – prompted by the recent Wall Street financial crisis — that I thought might be interesting.   I don’t know if it’s accurate, but at least the guy has been talking directly with a number of different ladies, as part of a long-term formal study, rather than just hypothesizing and pontificating.  You know, like I often do.

A brief reference to the abstract of a scholarly paper the article references:

Do I rely on reviews??

A recent comment here caught my eye:

As for not reviewing ASPD/P411 providers, or those who already have reviews here… I’ve met a lot of gentlemen recently who have said they found me through reading my reviews (either here or on other boards). However, when I mention that if they’d like to write one of our time together I’d be absolutely ok with that, they’re all like, “Nah, I don’t write reviews.” WTF?

Frequently they cite wishing to stay under the radar as a reason. I understand the desire to remain UTR, but how revealing is it to create an anonymous handle to write a review? If you use reviews to find providers, give back to the community by posting your own reviews!

A legitimate point.  I think she and I mostly agree, with a possible slight difference concerning presumptions/who should initiate (“maybe ask first, but assume she’s OK with a review unless she says no” versus “assume she’s not interested in a review unless she asks”).  And I’m reconsidering on that.

But it did start me thinking about whether I really do “use reviews to find providers.”

Restricted access

Reviews on many sites are set up so that only those granted access to “restricted areas” (“BCD” in ASPD parlance) can read certain parts of the review (the “Comments” section, at ASPD), and those with such access are not supposed to reveal the contents to those without such access.  I’ve talked about that in general terms before.  There was one specific aspect of that rule that I’d wondered about recently, and now there is some clarification at ASPD.  Essentially:

• The person who wrote the review (“Reviewer”) can share the contents with the lady in question (“Review Subject”) if he does so before he posts it on ASPD.  The Review Subject in turn can post what he shared with her — including the restricted access portion — publicly, including on her website.
• But no one, including the Reviewer, can share the review, even with the Review Subject, after it has been posted.

Obviously, it’s their site and they can run it however they wish.  It strikes me, though, as a rule that is both underinclusive and overinclusive, in terms of the harms the BCD rules apparently are meant to address.  That is, it allows some harmful behavior but prohibits other behavior that is not harmful.

Unsettling

Certainly the stereotype does not apply to all sex workers . . . but there are some (hopefully not many) who experience P4P (or some aspects thereof) as something not just occasionally unpleasant but far, far worse.  Ladies who may feel compelled to continue, for various reasons, but are beaten down a little bit more every day, either from the very nature of the job or from particular bad circumstances they encounter.

I hope there are very few sex workers who find themselves in that situation, although I’m sure that some do — including possibly some of the ladies I see.  And I may not even be completely aware of it at the time.  But it’s very unsettling when you do experience such a situation.

Bad choice of words?

Yeah, I know that medications come in different forms — tablets, caplets, etc.

But — although there are definitely advantages to this particular form – it still seems strange from a marketing perspective to get all those junk emails trying to sell us Viagra, Levitra, or Cialis in soft tab form.  Wouldn’t it be better to come up with a different description?

Sex addiction

I’ve been thinking about this awhile.  My thinking hasn’t come to any nice, tidy conclusion, and it may never . . . so I guess now is as good a time as any to talk about it.

I recently ran across this article/Q&A from Newsweek.  Obviously, this is a fairly superficial analysis of the general condition.  There are bound to be more in-depth treatments of the issue somewhere.  I haven’t done a lot of research, but this is a starting point I intend to look at some time.  But for now, I guess this blog entry is really just some preliminary thoughts concerning . . . “is this me?”

When they retire

A young lady I know announced her retirement today on ASPD.  Most ladies who announce they’re retiring because they fell in love . . . well, I don’t know them well.  I wish them well (while remaining pessimistic) in abstract, but don’t get emotionally “invested.”  Not a big deal one way or another, either when they retire or if they all of a sudden reappear because it didn’t work out.  (And if it ends, it’s usually not amicable.)

But I’m very fond of this young lady.  A very special person who deserves the happiness her fella (a/k/a “one bad-ass mother fucker”) has brought her.  I’m really, really, really happy for her, and hoping it works.

Let’s pretend

From a poll over on ASPD:

Quite a few providers have the “I’m horny and want some dick now!” moments. I’m curious what sort of arrangement could be made…

A hobbyist has screened with a provider and is allowing himself to be called at a moment’s notice. The provider is in the mood and can call the hobbyist to come over. Certain hours apply, etc. Naturally, P4P would still be in effect.

Obviously there would be a certain time window for this to take place. Also assume there is no risk of an SO involvement or wife finding out. AKA – The provider phone call is problem free.

The spontaneity and the call starting from the provider’s end to me would heighten the GFE qualities of the session. Would this actually work out?

I guess “would this work” is really two different questions, isn’t it?

Compatibility

Recently, I contacted a lady (whom I’d not seen before) for a possible appointment.  And was turned down.  Not because I couldn’t pass screening.  In fact, I don’t think she ever checking the screening information I offered.  Instead, it was because I didn’t meet her “guidelines” for prospective clients.

That’s OK.  It doesn’t happen often, but clients have no “inalienable right” to see any lady whom they choose.  (Old, corny joke:  “I can go out with any woman I please.”  “Why don’t you?”  “Unfortunately, I please very few of them.”)  And in this instance, I had a hint ahead of time that this might be the case.  So I wasn’t upset or mad at her, although it did still feel a bit strange.  Even when it’s understandable, when it happens infrequently . . . when it does, it catches you a little bit by surprise.

Convenience

There is a hotel that, in recent years, I found particularly convenient for a tryst.  It was between where I parked my car during the day and my office; I walked past it twice a day, in the morning and the evening.  So a “detour” on the way to work in the morning or on the way home was exceptionally easy.  In fact, the hotel was so conveniently located that it would be possible on occasion to slip away from the office easily for a nooner or even a mid-afternoon tryst.

I only used it a few times, though, with just a couple of ladyfriends.  Most of the ladies I saw had their own “permanent” incall locations, rather than “floating” to hotels.  Plus at one time it was a little bit old and run down.  When they renovated, it was very nice but also more expensive; I’m not sure it’s even listed on Priceline, or if it is, whether it accepts relatively low bids.  On the few occasions that I used it, I threw in extra because of the higher cost; even if the lady built the cost of a hotel room into her rate, she may not have based her rate on that much.