A lot less cash is required for a street provider.
As you say, the risks are much greater.
Not everyone is able to afford more and avoid the risks.
In that sense, yes you may be an elitist.

-- Modified on 5/7/2004 8:12:09 PM

For those who clearly can afford a higher priced (or even $$$$ escort - think Hugh Grant) I assume there is an extra thrill from the 'danger' side of it, from getting 'a bit of rough', if you like.  For many maybe it's simply a case of it being affordable and convenient.

Street hookers are like fast food--not the healthiest choice but quick, available, and low cost. I went that route only once--before the Internet made hobbying more convenient and less risky.

3 am, drunk from a six pack, and crusing in the big city.  Desparate times call for desparate measures.  These days, I don't drink cheap booze, and I wouldn't touch a SW with a ten foot pole.  I guess it's whatever befits the hour.

-- Modified on 5/8/2004 9:44:24 AM

And would ladies be reluctant to seeing a hobbyist if he enjoyed the play in the form of street lovin'?
Same goes for the guys involved with pornstars.
Would the ladies be a little scared to see them because of the HIV scare in their community?
It's the same thing but very risky and at times deadly.
You're not being an elitist.
Just like some charge 20 others charge 1500.
Some guys don't think it's wrong or dirty.

I never would do it, but I think I understand it now.  When a man is usually putting forward so much effort for sex (either reflected in your wages spent, and/or the time and attention) there's an elevated excitement, or at least a break in tension, to having easy, cheap sex, no matter if the quality is low and the risk high.  Even if the risk is high, there's the added gambler's thrill to it when you escape unscathed, especially if she was better than expected.

I guess you usually have to add a lot of your own fantasy to it to make the sex even passable or memorable, however.

/Zin