There was apparently a little bit of a brouhaha on ASPD recently about geniusman replying to reviews to post pictures of the lady being reviewed.  An ASPD thread about it here, and an ECCIE thread about it here.

I missed the memo on this one, so I am not sure exactly when or how the restriction was expressed.  But my initial reaction is that the whole thing sounds a little bit silly on both sides.

In my opinion, pictures absolutely are beneficial when included in a review.  Sure, if you provide a link to her website or P411 ad, people can go find them without your including the picture in the review — but the same applies to information like her rate and contact information.  It makes sense to make it easier for readers, and since physical appearance is a significant factor for many clients in deciding whom to see . . . .  Bandwidth or the “permanence” of pictures when posted on the Internet clearly aren’t problems either, because the pictures are actually hosted elsewhere — the ASPD codes for IMG merely link to the URL where the picture is located.  No problem from that. 

But at the same time, it’s not difficult to understand how geniusman’s practice might be seen as problematic from the perspective of some.  Sure, the guys enjoy the pictures.  Sure, the ladies whose pictures he posts appreciate that.  On the other hand, it’s entirely foreseeable how this sort of thing might be perceived negatively.  Although of a lesser magnitude, it’s somewhat similar to excessive (note the modifier) flirting or titillating topics posted by ladies.  The guys enjoy it.  The ladies who post them enjoy it.  But the staff almost inevitably get complaints from other ladies — who consider such posting as “disguised ads” that avoid the limits on frequency of posting ads and thus place those who don’t do it at a competitive disadvantage.

[Two points worth making.  First, a little bit of flirting/titillating topics or replies bumping reviews to the top of the queue is not that big a deal and rarely leads to complaints or actions by the staff.  There are very few instances that really create problems.  But there are some.  Second, I suspect sometimes it may be the possibility of complaints from other ladies, rather than the volume of actual complaints, that leads to staff actions.  How much are the other ladies complaining, really?  Sometimes not as much as you might think from hearing the staff talk about it, I suspect.]

There is a difference between including pictures in the original review (which I’ve tried to do for almost all my reviews on ASPD starting in 2005) and someone else posting a reply to include pictures.  The former is not “promotion” in any normal sense, but the latter could be viewed that way under some circumstances.  Particularly if the reply is posted a day or two or three later (when it bumps the review to the top of the queue, displacing other more recent reviews) or if it is done selectively, for only some of the ladies but not others.

My recollection, which may or may not be accurate, was that geniusman included an invitation in his signature line, for ladies to contact him (and send him pictures ?) if they wanted him to post pictures on their reviews.  That doesn’t imply that, when they did so, he sought some sort of arrangement for a quid pro quo.  It doesn’t necessarily even imply that he was doing it as a way to get attention from and interaction with the ladies.  It always struck me as a bit strange, though.  If you want to post pictures on a review, most ladies have them available on websites or P411 ads.  That public sharing of pictures suggests consent for use of the pictures with their reviews.  And it’s exceptionally easy to do.  In fact, that’s what I did on most reviews I wrote, starting in 2005.  Go to the website or P411 ad; right-click on the picture; select “Properties”; highlight and copy the URL for the picture; [the foregoing is for Internet Explorer, may be different for other browsers]  and then use the IMG codes in ASPD to insert the picture in the review.  Preferrably in the non-protected part of the review. Piece of cake.  I found it one of the easiest parts of writing a review, and if I can do it, anyone should be able to.  With the public availability of her pictures and the ease with which they can be added to a post, if I were going to reply to a review to add pictures, I don’t know that I would bother contacting the lady.  *shrug* 

Geniusman didn’t take exactly the same approach — he apparently took pictures the ladies sent to him and stored them elsewhere (villagephotos?); perhaps enhanced or improved them as well?  That’s ueful to the ladies as well, but of course enhanced/improved pictures could as easily be stored on their websites or P411 and a review or reply to a review could link there instead.  Arguably a better solution, since the enhanced/improved pictures are available then not only to those reading the reviews but also to those who just visit the lady’s website or P411.

Apparently he only performed this service for some ladies, not others.  And apparently he did it for every ASPD review of those ladies.  (It’s not clear from the posts I linked above whether he is allowed to post pictures but only one per lady per year, or if that was an earlier compromise with which he didn’t comply and now the prohibition is complete.)  I don’t know how many ladies he was doing this for; he’s averaging almost 30 posts per day in the last couple of months but that includes other stuff and of course for part of that time he was not replying to reviews to post pictures.

So, on one hand, I’m not sure I would have made a big deal about it if I were on staff.  Yeah, he bumped reviews, but based on a quick check it looks like he normally did it the same day — often within a couple of hours — of the last post in the thread, so he didn’t bump threads very far and arguably no worse than many others who reply to every review of their favorites.  Were many other ladies, whose reviews were displaced, complaining?  If so, did the staff suggest they try asking that he perform the same service for them so they wouldn’t be at a disadvantage?  Of course maybe something else was going on in the background of which I’m not aware and which the staff is not mentioning (always a possibility), but on the surface it looks fairly harmless — even beneficial — and more like a molehill than a mountain.

But, on the other hand, if you start bumping every review for a few specific ladies, it will look like promotion to many people.  Not necessarily a really bad type of promotion, and not a lot different than guys who always reply to reviews of their favorites, and with more value than the typical “bump to promote” — but it will irritate some people.  And even if there is little or no reason/justification for the staff asking someone to stop, is it really that big a deal?  He can still help the ladies by improving their pictures for use on their websites or P411 ads, ready for reviewers to link to.  And there are always other things to do.  It’s somewhat akin to a lady refusing to see you again, or a favorite retiring — yeah, you’re now unable to do something you enjoy, but it’s better to just move on to someone else.  Lots of other ladies to see instead of that one who is no longer available; lots of other things one can do in one’s spare time instead of replying to reviews.  Or find another site on which to do it. And for those complaining about losing this benefit: it’s not as though geniusman’s is the only solution to the issue.  If it’s so valuable to have pictures included with reviews, you don’t have to rely on one guy to fix it for you; find alternatives and contribute to the solution yourselves (for example, see below).

——————–

But the real reason for bringing this topic up:

I vaguely recall from many years ago some ASPD members coming along behind reviews and replying with a link to the lady’s website.  A valuable service, but we’ve moved beyond that — community standards have evolved and most reviewers post that information automatically so that no one has to clean up behind them.  Maybe that’s what would make sense here as well.  Explain how to include pictures in the initial review (maybe sticky instructions to the top of the review forums) and encourage reviewers to do that.  It’s easy; if I can do it, anyone can.  It’s starting to become less rare and there’s no reason it can’t eventually become a community norm, part of the routine approach to writing a review.  Hell, the ladies could suggest it to their clients who plan to write a review.  And then the ladies and the readers can benefit from the inclusion of pictures without having to rely on one guy to do it.

Why not?

Speaking of “lists,” mine is rather short at the moment, at least compared to where it’s been in the past.  I’m at a stage where who is more important than what.  The desire tends to be more specific, directed at particular individuals – wanting to see X or Y or Z rather than just wanting to get laid with anyone acceptable who happens to be available.  So, there’s my ATF.  Maybe two other favorites remain on the list (after others retired or disappeared), and one of those is so damned far away that the list is almost reduced to two.  (It’s worth the time and effort to go visit the distant lady, but it’s extremely difficult to fit into my schedule.)  That’s it.  Unfortunately, with a list that short, it’s sometimes difficult (between my schedule and theirs) to schedule very often.

There are certainly other ladies who are attractive, friendly, and accommodating.   I’ve seen them before and know that, if I feel the urge and can’t schedule with one of my favorites, I would enjoy seeing them.  But I don’t experience as much (if any) feeling of connection with them.  I might contact them if the “feeling [comes] upon me like a tidal wave.”  But with respect to planning an rendezvous because of thinking about a specific lady — as is more often the case these days, as opposed to just because of an unfocused physical urge looking for a target on which to focus — it’s likely just one of the three (or two?) on that dwindling list of favorites/regulars.  Most often, although not always, if none of them are available I may not even try to find another partner for the afternoon.

Sometimes when my “favorites” list gets short, I wind up “replenishing” it by seeing other ladies who might become a favorite/regular.  But at least at the moment I don’t feel a lot of enthusiasm or urgency for that either.  And at the moment, I’m not sure if there is anyone on my “to see”/”prospects” list, although admittedly I haven’t been looking very actively.  (If I don’t look actively and carefully, I’m not apt to them.  There are a lot of ladies in Dallas, but few who catch my fancy.)  At some point, if the list dwindles further or it becomes increasingly difficult to arrange a tryst, I may find more enthusiasm/urgency for finding new prospects and rebuilding the list.

Until then, I’m drifting along, content with where I am.  In the past, I’ve sometimes thought I was slowly drifting away from P4P, but I don’t think that’s the case.  The list usually does get replinished eventually; it just hasn’t, yet.

I was involved in a discussion recently of the propensity by P4P clients to publicly comment about putting a lady on their “want to see” list, often in response to reviews or discussions of a particular lady.  The context of the discussion was — guys do it frequently; would we be offended if ladies made similar comments, about particular guys they haven’t seen but would like to see?  Actually, that’s an awful lot like a “cold call,” whether posted publicly (as the guys frequently do about the ladies) or a private approach to the object of their interest.  And even privately a lot of ladies are very reluctant to do so, because of the fear of rejection or that guys don’t want to be approached.

But it did make me wonder . . .

I mean, guys listing their favorites (of ladies they have seen), or designating an ATF, is a fairly common phenomenon on P4P discussion boards.  In many respects, it’s just a somewhat more formal way of saying something that may already be communicated in other fashions.  If one were to read, say, the last ten reviews I’ve posted — all of which were positive and often of ladies I’ve seen multiple times — it would still be evident, I think, which of those ladies I liked the most.  Even with positive reviews, the differing level of enthusiasm comes through.  Some ladies I enjoyed spending time with; others I really enjoyed spending time with a lot. :) A list of my favorite ladies would be easier to look up and more succinct, but it might not be very surprising.  Or, at least not to those who had access and spent the time to read the entire reviews.  (The reviews aren’t a fool-proof indicator, of course, because often they’re written in the rosy glow relieving a first or second session, and on subsequent visits the bloom fades . . . or in some instances the enthusiasm may grow.) 

Put another way, it’s a fairly common type of signal and differentiation on P4P sites.  And it can be useful information to other guys — serving as a “very strong recommendation” that may influence their choice of whom to see.  It may also be appreciated by the ladies even separate from the marketing aspects; everybody likes compliments. And of course a public compliment may be appreciated more by the recipient than a private one, as it’s usually considered more authentic.  If I tell a lady privately that she’s an ATF, well, she might suspect me of saying that (privately) to several ladies.  How would they know?  But if I post it publicly, she may be more likely to believe I really mean it.  Not to mention that public compliments may affect decisions by prospective clients.

[A brief digression.  I think such public statements bother some people, who sympathize with those who don't wind up being named as favorites.  That happens, inevitably.  In part because only a small subset of clients make such public posts and which ladies get named is skewed rather dramatically by which clients happen to post publicly.  But the same thing happens with respect to reviews as well.  And ultimately, it's better to accept it.  If we avoid naming favorites because of the fear of offending others -- that's not that far away from the political correctness/self-esteem movement of giving every child in the class a blue ribbon so none of them will feel left out.  Good intentions.  Road.  Paved.  You get the drift.]

Going the other direction, though, comments by the ladies about their favorite guys don’t have a significant impact as recommendations since the ladies (usually) don’t make the choice of whom to see, and rarely even ask for an appointment from some new guy.  As a compliment, they can be useful for marketing, as long as made privately; here, a public declaration of a couple of favorites could hurt her business, as it dispels the fantasty/illusions of other clients.

———————–

All that’s fairly obvious and routine and discussed to death.  What I started wondering after that discussion was . . .

Why do we comment publicly about the ladies we’d like to see??  What’s the motivation for declaring that you are adding a lady to your “want to see list,” as opposed to adding someone to your “(already seen) favorites” list?? 

“I want/intend to see her” is not really much of a recommendation, is it?  Surely other prospective clients won’t be influenced much by the fact that I want to see a particular lady (as opposed to the fact that I did see her, and enjoyed my time with her immensely).  It’s not even a strong compliment — initial attraction doesn’t really say a lot about what I’ll eventually think of her.  A lot of times our expectations are not consistent with the reality we encounter, whether better or worse, so any comments before actually meeting have an innate tentativeness to them.

But they are still recommendations and compliments, I guess, and there’s nothing wrong with that — although they’re not as strong as similar comments after having seen her BCD.  And there are other reasons for making such comments.  They may be in part a means of fitting into the group.  Bonding by sharing your interests, enthusiasms, aspirations.  Particularly in an online environment, some people find it difficult to join the conversation, and this can be a fairly easy/safe ice-breaker.  And, in the context of replies to a review, it’s potentially an indirect compliment to the reviewer — both for his taste in companions and for writing a review that makes you want to see her.

But I wonder, still, if there’s something else (subconsciously) behind that. 

Maybe the very act of asserting “I want/intend to see X” enhances the pleasure we derive from anticipation?  By giving voice to it, you make the anticipation more substantial in some way?  And for some clients, the anticipation may come close to the pleasure derived from actually meeting.

Maybe there’s a possible status effect based on who the lady is?  If she’s perceived as providing a high quality experience, does some of that perception rub off on you by your mentioning the desire or intention to see her, showing that you’re a man of good taste who appreciates such high quality experiences?  There is perhaps some degree of having a somewhat better opinion of a guy based on the ladies he chooses to see, but I’ve always assumed it was relatively minor if not non-existent.  Although, of course, that wouldn’t stop guys from trying to achieve status that way.  Not just in P4P, but also in civilian life — not only the ladies he dates but also the car he drives, house he lives in, his job, well-known people he claims as friends and acquaintances, etc.  It’s a fairly common phenomenon and I suspect a lot of us fall into the “status” trap at least occasionally; I’m sure I do.

Maybe, for a few, there’s also a possible status effect just based on demonstrating a high level of (intended) participation in P4P?  Not that it’s necessarily common, but there are some guys who derive satisfaction/pride from being a “player” or “hobbyist” — that subset of clients who, as Alexa put it, “specifically seek out every new provider so that he can claim he’s seen her, so he can be the first to review her, so he can throw her name around on the boards, etc.”  I still don’t really understand such a mindset.  Even in civilian life, most guys by the time they reach 35 or so realize that a very active social/sexual life doesn’t necessarily mean that you have sterling personal qualities.  In P4P?  Even less so.  Being proud of being a “player” just seems . . . odd.  A lot of escorts agreeing to have sex with you doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re hot stuff — only that you have time and $$$ and can pass screening.  But, some of us (I don’t exempt myself) do exhibit that attitude on occasion.  Maybe it’s indirect status from demonstrating that we have the $$$.

Maybe something else?  I don’t know.  Any other suggestions?

Hey, it’s generally harmless.  Although it may occasionally annoy a few people because it “bumps” a review without adding any useful information, it’s not really something negative that needs to be avoided or that people need to feel self-conscious about.  It’s not necessarily a character flaw.  We all do it, and I’m certainly not criticizing those who do.  Hell, I’ve probably done it myself.

I just wonder why.

On threads on ASPD and ECCIE awhile back, Kelly raised the question for someone dating an escort who continued to work:

If you were dating an escort…

Would you be okay with her Not wanting to share You with Anyone else?

The premise being: he’s aware of, and OK with, her job . . . but thinks it’s only fair that he be allowed to “play” as well. 

The specific question posed is complicated enough, but there are other questions swirling around an escort in a serious relationship.  It’s a confusing topic, as evidenced by the vast array of answers focusing on different aspects – although there are some aspects that seemed to be ignored by most if not all the participants in the discussion.

I can only answer that specific question posed hypothetically.  I’m married, so there is no prospect of my dating an escort, even assuming for the sake of argument that I found one who was interested in dating me.

But, hypothetically . . . Well, let’s start with the scenario of a ladyfriend whom I was still paying and who asked me not to see anyone else.  I’m not sure if I would be OK with that, but I suppose I might be under some circumstances.   I can visualize reaching a point where I considered her more of a mistress, with a real relationship not entirely based on $$$ but requiring contributions to her financial support (assuming she’s not independently wealthy).  Under those circumstances, if I thought that it would hurt her feelings to know I was seeing someone else (as opposed to concern about sharing my P4P budget) and I felt close enough to her and our schedules permitted . . . yeah, I might accept that and see her exclusively.  (For the record, I’ve never sensed that any of my P4P ladyfriends were hurt at all by the thought of my seeing others . . . although of course some may have wished they could have a higher share of my business just for financial reasons.  That wouldn’t be that unusual, would it? Most businesses, whether P4P or other, would prefer to have as much of their clients’ business as possible.  I know mine would.)

If we were dating, and I was no longer paying her, it would be even easier for me to accept that, I think.

So I think it would be possible, although I’m not entirely sure I would be able to remain faithful.  After all, I’m married now and not faithful to my wife.  I’m not going to get into a long discussion about that now, but it’s not easy to remain faithful when it means celibacy for 15+ years.  In the hypothetical scenario, if I were single but dating an escort, and sex were available on some sort of reasonable frequency, could I remain faithful?  It’s hard to know for sure since it’s entirely hypothetical, but I think so.

——————————–

But many who responded to that question focused not on the guy’s actions, but on the escort’s actions.  Assume for the moment that it’s not OK for him to be in a serious relationship with her but continue to P4P with others.  Is it OK for her to be in a serious relationship with him but still fucking other guys (for money)?

Some who participated in the discussion threads focused on “fair is fair” — it’s not a problem if she’s still working, but if she is, he should have the same freedom.  Others suggested that it would be wrong for either of them to have sex with others while in a serious relationship, even though it was her job; she would have to stop sex work.

I suspect most civilians, and even many people in P4P, agree with that latter perspective.  It’s just something that is part of the general culture within which we grow up and are socialized.  It’s OK to casually date, and have sex with, many partners at the same time.  (And maybe that’s a good analogy for P4P in general; even though I may be seeing Lady A, it’s no more “serious” than a civilian lady I might date on a very casual basis and with whom exclusivity is not expected.)  At some point, though, if the civilian relationship grows more serious, we begin to consider exclusivity.  (Not all people follow that standard.  Even with serious relationships, even with marriage, some couples are comfortable with an open relationship in which they’re free to have sex with others.  But my guess has always been that people who truly feel that way, and are comfortable with that, are a very small minority of the population.  That doesn’t mean they’re “wrong” or “deviants” — just outliers.)

Some people consider an escort’s situation to be different.  After all, she’s not seeing her clients because of emotional attachment; it’s her job, how she supports herself.  Even though an SO might prefer exclusivity in all areas, the most important is emotional and that need not be sacrificed simply because she’s an escort.  She can offer physical intimacy to clients while giving emotional intimacy only to her SO.

That sounds like a logical distinction, but I’m not sure it’s entirely persuasive.  Many ladies do “connect” with clients in a way that is, at least to a degree and in a bounded fashion, emotional rather than merely physical.  At least, many ladies claim they do. Can she retain enough of an emotional distance with clients that an SO would not feel betrayed emotionally? 

And if she can/does, what does that imply?  When I considered that aspect, I visualized an escort I was dating (hypothetical, remember?).  I think it would be very unlikely that we would reach that exclusivity stage unless I had felt strong “connection”/”chemistry” with her.  If the feeling of bounded authenticity were not there . . . it seems rather unlikely that I would have wound up dating her.  But now, is she telling me that other clients, who feel the same connection/chemistry, are just experiencing an illusion?   Would that make me re-examine and question our relationship, when it had begun in the same fashion as her relationship with other clients?  Would I suspect that what I had considered bounded authenticity was really just an illusion?  Or else question her assurances that she didn’t feel any emotional attachment to other clients?

That’s not to say it couldn’t work, of course.  I suppose one scenario would be analagous to the progression of a dating relationship.  It starts out casual, with emotional attachment (but at a limited level) with a variety of partners.  The relationship becomes more serious with one person.  When it does, she either stops dating others (civilian) or erects stronger emotional barriers with clients (escort). 

I don’t know.  Maybe.  But whether I could accept her continuing to work as an escort is a harder question than whether I could stop seeing other people.

————————

From that question, whether an SO would be comfortable with her continuing to work as an escort, the logical next question is: why is she continuing to work?  And that question, of course, is one fairly unique to P4P.

Forty or fifty years ago, wives generally didn’t work outside the home.  Now they do, and most guys (hopefully) would not have a problem if an SO continued to work — for any job other than as an escort.  For the reasons suggested above — that we are socialized to equate sex with emotional attachment by the lady and an SO might feel threatened or betrayed by any emotional attachment to her clients.

There’s an obvious transition problem.  At some point, for the relationship to go further, it will be a problem for them if she continues sex work.  But she may not be able to stop until the relationship progresses even further.  That’s her job, how she supports herself.  The desire for sexual exclusivity arises earlier in the progress of a civilian relationship, generally, than the willingness of the guy to provide adequate financial support so that she can quit her job.  What happens with an escort when he wants sexual exclusivity but is not ready to pay all the bills?  Can/would he commit to footing the bills (which might be substantial) for a period of time while they see whether they want to take the relationship further?

Of course, self-sufficiency is not necessarily the only reason that she would want/need to continue working.  There are several possibilities.  Perhaps the SO doesn’t have enough financial resources to support them, and both of them need to work to provide the lifestyle they want.  Perhaps the SO can do so by himself, but she doesn’t want to be totally dependent on him.  (That is likely how some escorts came to P4P in the first place; they were totally dependent on some guy who died, divorced her, etc. and left them scrambling to get by.)  Perhaps she’s not concerned about security but just likes the satisfaction/fulfillment of her own career.  In the civilian world, that’s usually not a problem, unless the guy has a fragile ego and/or is unable to break free from the old stereotypes about the proper place for a woman.  If her job is sex work, though, it is a problem, or at least can be.

So . . . why does she continue with sex work as opposed to finding some other job?  One of the participants on the ECCIE thread said:

Whatever drove a woman to become an escort is an underlying force which will ultimately cause the demise of any traditional relationship. Be it variety, boredom, money, erotica, that feeling will surface again and make your relationship seem like its not worth giving up your double life for. I’m not saying its not possible but for the women who were once escorts that quit this job and became someone’s wife…they didn’t really want to be escorts to begin with, they just sort of ended up here.

Well, there are a number of reasons.  “Money” is addressed above, concerning continuing to work versus not working.  As far as this particular job:  Because she needs something psychologically that P4P offers her but other jobs don’t.  Because the pay is better and/or the work is (in some ways) easier.  Because other good-paying jobs are not available.  (Particularly likely in the current economy.) 

I find any implication that most escorts are addicted to the P4P lifestyle and would choose it even if they could afford to not work at all or could find an equally well-paying job . . . a little bit amusing, particularly if coming from a P4P client. I kinda assume that the ladies are less likely than clients to be addicted to P4P.  After all, none of the clients are compelled to participate to earn a living — in fact, it’s an expense — whereas at least some of the ladies may be quite content to give it up if they had another way to pay the bills.

One of the consequences of the illegal status of P4P is the careful “dance” we do in deciding whether to schedule an appointment.  The business is at least partly underground, and that inhibits the free exchange of information to a degree.  Most of the time the normal means of exchanging  information are enough for both parties to feel comfortable proceeding.  But not always.

That’s why it amuses me when someone complains about another option being made available to reach that comfort zone.

The specific instance I saw most recently arose in the context of a prospective client who was unable to find sufficient information regarding the lady.  He was concerned about the lack of reviews and particularly the lack of pictures.   I can understand this problem arising, where what one party is willing to offer doesn’t match what the other needs to feel comfortable, particularly because: (1) physical appearance is such a significant component of attraction for men; and (2) the illegal nature of P4P makes many ladies uncomfortable with providing pictures publicly.  (Even those who provide pictures often don’t show their faces, which are very important to many clients.  And it can be a little scary even to share additional pictures privately after she’s screened him; once a picture is given to anyone, it’s outside her control and there’s no telling what he might do with it.)  It could also, of course, have been a case of a prospective client wanting not only to see what the lady looked like but also to assess whether there was any “chemistry” between them.

The need for a supplement to normal information could arise on the other side too, of course.  Sometimes because the prospective client is not able to offer enough information for normal screening.  Sometimes because the lady also wants to assess whether there might be any chemistry.  I suspect this occurs less often with the ladies, though.  If normal means of exchanging information are insufficient for screening, it’s rather risky to “screen” him based on a meeting in person.  LE and psycho crazies are not always evidently thus on first impression. And if it’s not a screening problem, most ladies cannot — for financial reasons (because this is often their primary means of support) — restrict their appointments to only those guys with whom they feel the most chemistry.  So a “pre-booking-an-appointment” face to face meeting may not be that useful for most ladies.  But even if it’s less frequent with the ladies than the clients, it does still occur.  A few ladies do screen in significant part based on a meeting in person *shudder*, and I can recall at least one who wanted to meet prospective clients for coffee first to see if they were compatible.

So — a meeting in person may enable one of the parties to reach a comfort level sufficient to proceeding with an appointment.  That’s a good thing.  In fact, the ability to meet before committing to an appointment is a significant part of the attraction to P4P social events for many clients.  Well, it was part of my motive when I started attending them anyway. It was a chance to see several ladies at once, to get a better idea of what they looked like than offered by their pictures, and to chat with them a bit to see if there was any spark.

If such social events are not available, or for those who don’t feel comfortable attending them, there’s always the possibility of a one-on-one meeting in person.  But those present problems, of course.  It takes time.  And with the ladies, it has the potential of wasting a lot of their time.  There are a fair number of guys out there who would/do ask for such meetings even when they have no real intention of actually booking an appointment.  Maybe they can’t afford to, or are afraid of crossing the line to illegal behavior, but they will still enjoy spending time with an escort non-BCD.  So if a lady is too ready to have such meetings, she may find a lot of her time taken up with unproductive meetings.  It’s true that meeting with prospective clients is an important part of marketing for many professionals, but not to the extent that it interferes with the work for which they’re actually paid.  In most professions, that’s not a significant concern.  Few prospective clients want to meet an attorney for coffee or lunch to see if they “click.”  In fact, many clients prefer not to meet attorneys at all. But in P4P, yes, I’m sure it can be a problem.

One way of addressing the problem (and it’s not unique to P4P, by the way) is asking for a small fee for such preliminary meetings.  It’s a way to weed out those who really aren’t serious about engaging the professional’s services.  At the same time, if it’s relatively small (and particularly if it can be applied against the regular fee if the professional is actually hired), it may not deter those who are seriously considering engaging the professional’s services.

That’s apprently what was going on in this case.  Despite the original poster’s comment about not paying $300 to have coffee with the lady, in fact her website made clear that the fee for a preliminary meeting was only $40, certainly not a major amount.

The drama arose, I think, because of a false comparison.  Many people were comparing the idea of a preliminary meeting for $40 to the idea of a preliminary meeting for free.  Well, sure, I’d prefer the latter too.  But not all ladies even offer such preliminary meetings.  Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would have been between a preliminary meeting for $40 to no preliminary meeting at all — you either book an appointment based on the limited information available or you don’t.

So I saw this as people complaining about an added option, not always or even normally offered.  If you don’t want that option, that’s fine.  And if without a free preliminary meeting, you’re not comfortable and decide not to book with her, that’s fine too.  But why complain about her offering an option that many ladies don’t offer??  Even if you don’t want to take that option, you’re no worse off than if she hadn’t offered it in the first place.  And some people may find it an option they like.

To some extent, the discussion may have been driven by the assumption that the option of not offering a preliminary meeting at all is bad business.  Again, in some professions, that may be the case.  Few people would ask for such preliminary meetings without a serious intention of engaging services, so the percentage of such preliminary meetings that result in a new client may be relatively high.  But in P4P?  Well, I have no way of knowing for sure, but from various comments I’ve read over the years, my impression is that ladies get a lot of inquiries from guys who really aren’t serious about booking — and many requests for preliminary meetings (free) may come from similar timewasters.  Not all escorts are good businesswomen (ditto for not all clients), but enough are that I would assume if such meetings really would be productive, they would be much more common than they are.

———————

Other than at large social gatherings (for which I might have to pay that same $40), I’ve never — that I can recall — pursued a preliminary meeting to decide whether I wanted to make an appointment with a lady.  There were certainly times that I wished I did know more about a lady than publicly available information/pictures.  When that arose, I either crossed my fingers and went ahead . . . or I just decided against seeing her.  In the case of this particular lady discussed in the thread, the relative lack of information probably would mean the latter.  No big deal.

My reason for not pursuing a preliminary meeting with a lady is more about the time it takes than a relatively minor outlay.  Frankly, it’s not always easy to get away for an hour or so.  If I can get away, I’d generally prefer to spend my time BCD with a lady I’ve decided I want to see, rather than having coffee with someone else to decide whether I want to see her.

But I sure wouldn’t complain about a lady who made the option available, just because I didn’t want to take advantage of it.

A question by Rebecca, posted on ASPD and ECCIE, about what constitutes a “scripted” session.

Well, many of us have heard of the extremes — where a lady plays the same CD and moves from activity A to activity B precisely when this song ends. But I think “scripted” and the way that Rebecca is approaching it misses the mark somewhat compared to what many would expect or want out of a session.

Of course, there’s a difference between “planned in advance down to the smallest detail” and “generally follow a similar pattern.”  And at least for some of us (unless I’m unique in this respect), the quality of the session doesn’t depend so much on the exact activities, order, or techniques (at a high enough level of abstraction, there are limited combinations) as the nuances or the feel of the time together.  Yes, you may always start out with kissing, for example, but to some degree — depending on how you’re interacting with the experience — every kiss, every caress, etc. is, to some degree, unique and can be experienced as such.  Because “kiss” or “caress” are large categories but hardly uniform within the category.  Not even uniform with a particular partner.

One aspect of this that I’ve expressed before is the difference between mindsets by the lady: interacting with the guy the same way she might with someone she went home with for some civilian NSA sex[*] versus “although I would like to enjoy them too, I am focused on doing these things because he will enjoy them; I value my clients and take pride in doing a good job.”  Specifically planning the session out in advance is rarely or never consistent with a really great time.  But even if you wind up following the same routine out of habit [**], it can still be an exceptional time if you connect and achieve some degree of bounded authenticity rather than drift into that second mindset.  Of course, it’s not just the ladies’ attitude; sometimes the clients approach it with different mindsets which may be less or more compatible with connecting.

[*]  Not to imply a willingness to actually see the client for free.  Just the feeling that once the $$$ is taken care of she forgets about it and connects with you as she might with a civilian with whom she connected.

[**]  Brief digression.  I vaguely recall a passage from, I think, The Death Freak by Clifford Irving describing a couple who settled into certain habits for sex and although they might vary from it occasionally, somehow it just wasn’t quite as good as when/how they had grown to expect it.  I know that’s inconsistent with the perspective of a lot of people who need some degree of variety to maintain interest . . . but I think there may still be some truth to that observation.  Not that you can’t try new things and not that you should approach it as routine/obligation . . . but that comfort can enhance the experience as well.

—————————-

Does this concern go both ways?

It reminds me of something that I posted here awhile back, wondering (somewhere in that long, boring post ) whether the ladies similarly feel a need for variety.  Because keeping the relationship fresh can be hard for both parties.  After all, the direction the encounter takes is not always driven exclusively by the lady — some clients prefer to take control, and often both parties alternate between moving the encounter in a particular direction.  I wonder whether ladies have a similar concern, about the client “scripting” a session.

I suspect that most of my encounters, regardless of the lady, follow the same general pattern, at least at a high enough level of abstraction.  Not all, of course.  (And some of the most “variety” may have come with one ladyfriend who did not escape that “provider doing her job” mindset.  We connected outside of BCD more than we did sexually.  Somewhat unusual.)  But most.  Again, that’s not necessarily because the lady is driving it in a particular direction; it’s more joint/shared responsibility. But to the extent that it’s being driven a certain way by me, is that perceived by the ladies as scripting?  I don’t think so, and if it were, I suspect they would be more aggressive about taking control.  It’s never occurred to me to go to extremes, along the lines that Rebecca describes, to make the session more unique . . . but if a lady wants to interject some variety, who am I to argue?

————————————-

Not everyone will click.  Sometimes one or the other will be stuck in a “service [receiving or giving] mindset” rather than connecting with a real person.  But I think relatively few, of ladies or clients, would get complaints that she/he had “scripted” their time together.  Complaints about “scripting” are probably not often directed at the high level of abstraction — e.g., kissing, DATY, BBBJ, and cowgirl in that order being “the same” and “scripted” — with which Rebecca seems to be addressing it.  You can vary, and avoid “scripting,” within that framework.  As long as you approach it the right way.

Alexa has an interesting post over on Real Princess Diaries about client profiles.  She starts by describing a categorization of clients by another escort (Rebecca Dakin) in a book, and then segues into discussion of her typical client.  I found it very interesting, for a couple of reasons.

First, that initial categorization by Rebecca Dakin.  Obviously — just as when clients create a taxonomy of escorts — classification by intent, motive, etc. is subject to possible error.  But the possibility of error doesn’t mean it’s a worthless exercise, and in any event the extent of such errors by the ladies in assessing clients’ inner feelings is probably less than the extent of errors by clients in assessing the ladies’ inner feelings.

But what that categorization, broken down first by age and then by sub-groups based on attitude etc., also points out (although not necessarily what she intended by it):

• Many clients probably fit in multiple categories (“I am large, I contain multitudes”; you might want to look through the list and see how many capture a bit of you); and
• If a client stays involved in P4P for a long period of time . . . his profile probably changes more than once.  As I read the list, it emphasized to me that I’m not the same as I was 30 years ago, or 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago.

Of course, with respect to that second point, we see that change in ourselves — if we take the trouble to look — but since most ladies know us for only a relatively short period of time (most often no more than 3 to 5 years, I suspect, although there are some outliers), the aspect of change is not as evident to them.

——————————

And there was the inevitable reaction in the comments by a lady who really doesn’t enjoy her clients at all:

Almost ALL of my clients are white, 28-40 yrs old, and are below average looking. They all suck in bed and don’t know what to do with their hands, mouth and bodies. Men on “The Erotic Review” are even worse. Because you are at their mercy when it comes to reviews despite the fact that they are unattractive, overweight, horrible in bed and cheating on there wives.

and again

Ckients suck in bed and are pretty unattractive. Go figure.

Reading that sort of thing occasionally is healthy for clients, I think, as a reminder that the public statements about how great we are — well, sometimes they’re absolutely honest, but not always.

Luckily, this particular lady is leaving P4P soon.  I say that not in a “good riddance” sense, but because it sounds as though she’ll be happier.

Also interesting to note the reference to cheating.  I’m not sure how many escorts are bothered by the thought that their clients are cheating on their wives — a reminder of sorts that a man she might want a long term relationship with might not be trustworthy, and perhaps even some small degree of guilt over her facilitating the harm to another woman.  But I suspect it’s something that bothers the ladies more than they’re comfortable admitting publicly.

———————————-

And, finally, an interesting discussion about “hobbyists” or “punters.”  Some expanded discussion in the comments as well.  I don’t think it’s necessarily about any client who sees ladies frequently or even those who always sees someone new, almost never seeing a lady a second or third time.  It seems more about active participation on message/discussion/review boards, and perhaps also about actively writing reviews.  Some selected comments:

led me to refuse to see them if I know they like to accumulate escort notches on their bedposts (or belt).  Hobbyists just tend to have a different mindset than the kind of client I prefer to see.  They call them hobbyists for a reason, and I don’t really care to be just one more girl in their list of conquests.

However, hobbyists have threatened me with public outing, stalked me across several mediums and generally made my life more unpleasant than if I had never been involved with the boards.

That’s one of the characteristics of one subgroup of hobbyists – they seem to be all about control. Not all of them, of course, but just enough to give all of them a bad name. Most of the ones I’ve encountered have been pushy, overbearing and arrogant, especially once they find out how much I charge.

Well, despite the fact that many people see it as a “just sex” kind of thing, I like dealing with people who want at least a minimal connection of some type. Additionally, guys who see escorts as notches generally have a lot less respect for the women than the typical non-hobbyist (again, generalizing – there are many who don’t suffer from that issue). I won’t knowingly deal with clients who do not respect me as a human being.

And other comments that the “public promotion of their hobby” is seen as boorish and distasteful.

It seems, in a way, like two different aspects that are almost polar opposites.  Guys who emotionally distance or detach themsleves, where the conquest (as opposed to merely the sexual relief) is what’s important and the lady is an anonymous, faceless contribution to that result — not an individual in her own right worthy of respect.  And guys who want a relation to the lady, but an unhealthy one based on domination or control — leading to stalking, harassing, etc.  (Maybe those are not as opposite as they seem.)  And perhaps, in some respects, reviews not as information sharing but as a means of feeding the client’s ego and/or asserting control over the lady.

The subject of how the ladies feel about those who actively participate on discussion/review boards (or blog about P4P? ) is not a simple one.  There is some ambivalence, and recognition that not all “hobbyists”/”punters” are identical in how they relate to the ladies.  But it’s a fascinating window to their perspective, and one that not all “hobbyists”/”punters” run across.  I know several years ago I really didn’t understand the depth of the feelings that this engenders for some ladies, going well beyond just distate for being reviewed or the occasional guy who was over the top arrogant/misogynist.  When I started reading that sort of thing a few years ago, it opened my eyes and gave me a new perspective on members of discussion/review boards, and a new perspective on myself for that matter.

Interesting stuff.

——————

Well, the entire column, complete with all the comments, is interesting.  The above are just a few tidbits to pique your interest.  Check it out.

ASPD is down again.  Well, that’s happened before (often for relatively short periods of time).  But this time I also received an email from an admin there, to pass along:

Not sure what our issues are today, but if you will, please remind those who are registered at Home2 that our secondary site remains active.  And if new providers.members at aspd haven’t yet registered at Home2, they may do so and we will try to get them active asap.

http://home2.invisionzone.com

Consider it a public service announcement for those frantically searching the Internet for information about the status.   Which seems to happen a lot. Of course, I don’t know (and they may not either) how long it will be down.  Maybe only for a short period of time.

ASPD and/or the admin who contacted me would, understandably, suggest that people used ASPD and/or Home2.  But, just to play fair and take into account the preferences of TBone/Becky (ECCIE), Bella/Smiley (ML), and whoever owns/runs TER, Horndogs, AHC, etc. . . . check out these Other Links (also at the top of the page).

And I’ll also suggest, again, that it may be a very wise idea to diversify and avoid putting all your eggs in one basket.  That would include not only being members of multiple boards, but posting ads and reviews to multiple boards.  Make sure information is where it can be accessed by a lot of people.

That’s the beauty of the Internet and competition, isn’t it?

The blog was suspended sometime early Tuesday, but is now back up.  (Ditto for Deuce’s blog.)  Thanks to those who inquired.

I’m still not sure — and may never be — what happened.  The screen that came up when trying to access the blog referenced a violation of the terms of service, although I didn’t under my reading of the TOS.  Of course, I might be biased. But even how it occurred isn’t clear.  Did a WordPress person run across it accidentally and apply an incorrect standard?  Did someone report it to WordPress as a violation of the TOS?  And if the latter, was it a civilian who objects strongly to P4P, or a member of the P4P community who objects to my blog (and Deuce’s) specifically?  *shrug*  Who knows, or cares?  This is “just a silly P4P blog,” and whether it’s up or not — and why — doesn’t really matter.

The blog did go down a year or so ago, the same way, and then reappeared on its own a day or two later.  I could (and probably should) have contacted WordPress to ask what happened, and that might have led to an earlier resolution.  But this past week was hectic at work, and I’m lazy, not to mention a world-class procrastinator.  No telling when (or even if) I would have gotten around to it.  So credit for restoring the blog goes to Deuce, who contacted WordPress on behalf of both our blogs.  Thanks!

when they apparently don’t understand the business, or even business in general???

Just one of those things that irritates me.  And recently I ran across a prime example on ASPD.

The question raised by the original poster seems inane but relatively harmless:

Does running specials help or hurt a provider?

Inane because the question rather obviously is something for which there is no clear answer in general.  You have to look at a lot of details surrounding a specific instance to know whether running specials (or cutting her rates permanently for that matter) will help or hurt.  But when posed like that . . . .  Well, you can make some very general, and therefore virtually worthless, observations.  Running specials may or may not reduce her income, depending on the demand response and also her ability and willingness to book more appointments.  Running specials may make it harder to maintain business at her regular rates in the future, if clients start waiting for a special instead.  Running specials may attract new clients who were unwilling to take a chance at the regular rates, would see her at the special rate, and (assuming adequately impressed), might then be willing to see her at the normal rates on a regular basis since she’s no longer an unknown.  Some response, whether a special or something else, may be necessary if she’s not getting enough business at her regular rates to meet her needs.  Specials might be targeted to when she’s less busy (days of the week, or time of day) or prefers to schedule her working hours.  Etc., etc.

Find anything particularly useful in those vague, overly general observations?  I didn’t think so.  Anything that an experienced escort wouldn’t already have figured out on her own?  I didn’t think so.

Well, that would make the thread virtually worthless but at the same time relatively harmless.  No big deal.

On the other hand, then you see people starting to post nonsense that may confuse or mislead inexperienced readers, or at least offend others by its fantasy.  Nonsense that suggests that the poster simply doesn’t understand business in general, or has a very distorted and incomplete view of the P4P business.  Starting, of course, with those who try to “prove” their point using examples completely divorced from reality.  Such as:

If a provider pays 150 for a hotel incall

or

I know of at least 3 providers who stay in top end hotels and at least one that is easily 250 a night but it’s shared between 3 providers or at least was.

Huh???  I can get a room at a very nice 4-star hotel for $60 – $75, and even less for a 3-star or lower. 

Or the typical (unfortunately) “let’s calculate a provider’s annual income” exercise:

At 250 with 3 clients per day: 180000 gross (*with 4 weeks off)
At 250 with 4 clients per day: 240000 gross (*with 4 weeks off)

* the average paid time off at all companys in the US is currently 3 weeks.

If you were a woman, could you handle 4 dicks a day, 5 days a week for that kind of money annually until you retired?

OK, let’s see, 4 weeks a year is not much time off for Aunt Flo.  Is she going to work during that time of the month?  $250 per appointment.  Lot of ladies can’t maintain that high a rate.  And 3 or 4 clients a day, consistently, day in and day out, 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year?  There are ladies who can’t consistently get 10 clients a week, let alone 15 – 20.  I know it’s completely unscientific, but the poll referenced here showed less than 30% of the ladies with an average of 15 or more clients per week (and about an equal percentage with only one or two clients per week).  Not to mention that the higher volume ladies may well be working for an agency or spa/studio, in which case there’s probably a big cut out of their income.

Oh, we’re told in a response to the observation that some providers don’t see that many clients, but that’s not because of the economy:

that would be the providers choice not to take on more clients

Because, obviously, there are enough clients willing to spend enough money that any lady should be able to have that volume of business.  If she doesn’t, it’s her choice/fault.  Unlike other businesses, there’s an inexhaustible supply of clients willing to lay their money down.

Or, if she has trouble getting more than 3 clients a day, why, she can make up the difference by cutting her rates:

If a provider cuts her rates and takes on a few more clients, economics takes over and you see that the smaller volume can still outweigh the larger.

example
3 clients 1 day at 250 = 750 (this is all she could schedule due to the economic downturn)
5 clients 1 day at 200 = 1000 (just two more clients who can afford the discounted rate)

hmmm, lets see, 2 extra hours of work and still less than 8 hours and made 250 more, which is what someone that makes 50k per year makes gross in a day.

Words fail me.

Can some ladies make that much?  Probably.  Consistently, over several years?  Fewer.  Probably pretty rare, as the “flavor of the month” shine wears off, or the lifestyle hurts their professionalism and therefore ultimately their business.  There are a lot more escorts around here than there were a few years ago — and fewer clients.  Or the same number of clients but booking sessions much less frequently.

I don’t know whether such attempts to calculate provider income are just clueless, or subsonsciously affected by what the guy wants to believe, or an invalid extrapolation from a completely different kind of business.  I mean, I may have made similar mistakes in the past (although off by a lesser magnitude, hopefully), but some of this stuff is just unbelievable.

————————-

But my favorite example of a “business illerate” discussion isn’t that.  It’s a world-view that will sabotage any business owner or entrepreneur.  And it was foreshadowed in the post that started the thread:

All provider have a certain amount of fixed expenses each month, especially if they have kids.

Excuse me?  I understand that may be relevant to her decision on what rate to charge, but how is it relevant to the clients’ decision on whether to see her at that rate??  Yet, it seems clear from the rest of the thread (and his posts elsewhere) that he thinks that we should be willing to pay $X amount to see a lady because of how much revenue she needs to cover her living expenses.

Whether it’s P4P or a restaurant or some other small business — customers/clients don’t care, and they don’t want to hear about it.  They decide whether to enter into a transaction based on the cost compared to the value to the customer/client.  If there are not enough customers willing to pay enough for the business owner to net enough income from the business . . . the business fails.  And the owner looks for another way to make money.  Most small businesses fail; there is no guarantee of success.  P4P is a peculiar business that tends to excuse a lot of unprofessional and irresponsible behavior; at times, it seems almost impossible to fail at it, considering what some ladies get away with it.  (I think I’m stealing that idea from lehuh, who made it here somewhere, but I can’t find it at the moment.)  But there are limits.  Some escorts do fail, or at least earn so little that they would be better off abandoning this profession and looking for something else.

That’s what business is like.  And unless you’re emotionally involved with the escort, P4P is a fucking business.  (Consider that adjective as both an intensifer and a limiting qualifier. )  Those ladies who forget that — or are unwilling to accept the related responsibilities — are sabotaging themselves and potentially headed for disaster.  If it isn’t working out the way you want it to, you figure out how to improve things or you find another job.

(This instance, of course, was a WK expressing that attitude rather than a lady.  In her defense, his ATF may not think this way at all.  I have no particular reason to think she does.  But some people may attribute his attitude to her.  Another example of how a WK trying to help can actually hurt his ATF.)

His implication, that clients should consider her expenses and income needs in deciding whether to see her and how much to pay, comes very close to a sense of entitlement.  “I need that much, therefore they should be willing to pay it.”  I’m on record criticizing those who cry “GPS” simply because a lady has rates higher than they are willing to pay.  But if ever an attitude deserved the appellation of GPS, this type of sense of entitlement would be it.

——————-

[/curmudgeonly rant]  OK, I feel better now.