A lot of you complain about providers’ rates increasing and reminisce on the “glory days” before rates were what they are now, but I have to ask if you were booking more than 1 hour back when the rates were more “reasonable”? Were you seeing a SMALL HANDFUL of providers on a regular basis and treating them extremely well, or were you slinging your dick all over the place and never seeing the same girl more than once or a few times a year for a one hour incall?

As a “low-end” provider who charges $350 an hour with built in discounts for multi hour sessions, most of my inquiries are still for 1 hour incalls which makes it very difficult to stack the money that I need to reach certain goals. At a certain point it makes sense to just charge more. If most clients want one hour, it’s more beneficial to charge more per hour, simple. Don’t get mad at a bitch for charging $1k an hour in 2026 when you could’ve had her for that same price or less for several hours back in 2020, but still only opted for the bare minimum.

A business has the ability to adjust prices with inflation. An employee is at the mercy of pay rates increasing. As a provider, especially an independent one, you are running a business and able to make decisions about your rates. Overall, pay rates have not kept up with inflation. This is not just an issue for the increasing costs of providers. It's an issue for everything. And, as much as I like sex, gas for my car, paying my mortgage, and groceries come first. In the end, I have less to spend. And it's reasonable to be disappointed with having less.

 
I don't like to call it complaining, since I understand why rates have gone up. But, as I said to you in the other thread, I'm not going to pretend it's not an issue. And yes, I would repeat more often when it cost less. I did occasionally book 90 minute or two hour sessions. Though, I was more likely to repeat than book a longer session. Nothing against the ladies, but I usually don't need more than one hour.

 
Keep in mind, I have booked sessions for up to $800. For a one hour experience, I would not call that cheap. But heck yeah I would rather book two sessions over the same time for that amount of money. Who wouldn't? But does this mean I don't understand why providers are charging more? It does not. They are faced with the same inflation challenges that I am. I get it. If I could tell my boss that I am charging more to continue working for him, you better damn believe I would do the same.

-- Modified on 4/25/2026 2:29:41 PM

@TSLucyjane.  First let me say that I read a past post from you mentioning that TS dates seem to require lower rates.
But, if you can get booked at a higher hourly rate, do it!  Then give a discount for a longer booking. It's an incentive for the client to book longer.

 
I know for my cis dates, if a girl offers proportionally lower rate for longer sessions, then I'll find my sweat spot and book a longer time.  I don't like when a girl has an hourly rate and just doubles or triples it for multiple hours.  That's not a good price point for me.  If I do a 2 or 3 hour session, then give me a discount on the 2nd and 3rd hour.  If she is just multiplying her hourly rate by the number of hours, hard pass.

 
This may incentivize clients to spend more with you, and all you're out is your time, without the prep for multiple clients.

 
Not sure that addresses your question, but that's my take.

-- Modified on 4/25/2026 5:08:28 PM

The goal of a buyer isn't to put money in a seller's pocket.

The goal of a consumer is to find value of a proposition that works for them. Many sellers call that "cheap" as if they only want clients that don't look at the price tag and just make it rain. Bu that isn't "cheap". It's fairly normal consumer behavior. Trust me. As a big consumer rights advocate, for most consumers of anything, price is a huge factor in the final decision. Quality is too, as value is a ratio of quality vs price.

And all consumers complain about price increases of anything.  
People don't like paying more for something they used to pay less for.  

I would see providers for two hours extremely rarely, because why? The value isn't there for me.  

 
If my goal (this is just my goal) is to maximize penetration time as it's the most important time for me, having two providers at one hour each is more enticing to me than having one provider at two hours. I get to engage in sexual services with two different people who may have different varied skills and looks, and I get to have more pen time as with two hour romp I will need refractory periods to get my shit back up for the lovin'.  

 
The logic you try here is that if a fish taco cost three dollars before instead of six, why weren't we buying five of them? Well maybe one or two was enough for most people?

-- Modified on 4/25/2026 2:06:11 PM

I was supportive up to now.

 
So not only  are we (as you seem to be speaking in the aggregate) resentful "slobbyists" who are too cheap or poor, we're now also failing to exercise monogamy (or something close to it) in P4P.  Really?! With numerous gorgeous women available, I should stop "slinging my dick" everywhere and settle down with one or two? Thereby undercutting one of the most important attributes of P4P? Why? Because you say so? Because that's how you define successful or correct or "According to Hoyle" P4P? Or because we're responsible for helping you stack your paper?

 
There are women I've seen no fewer than 30 times spread out over a couple of years. And lots of ladies where once or twice was enough for me. Hopefully the ladies in the latter group enjoyed our time together as much as I did. And if some other player chose to see them repeatedly, hopefully they enjoyed that too. But until such time as there's a mandate about who I fuck and how often, excuse me while I kiss the sky (and sling my dick).    

 
Buen suerte.  

-- Modified on 4/25/2026 2:13:57 PM

-- Modified on 4/25/2026 2:27:18 PM

-- Modified on 4/25/2026 3:26:04 PM

Are you angry at the world or your choices?

Just by your post alone, you seem like a miserable person to be around.

Interesting question Lucy. In the pre-SESTA/FOSTA days before Backpage and so many other crucial sites were shut down, I received significantly more multi-hour and overnight bookings. My rates were lower, but it's hard to determine if just my rates alone in isolation was the reason why.  

 
Marketing and advertising was more straightforward during that era. Shadowbanning and deplatforming of providers wasn't as aggressive. Some of my most loyal suitors came from Twitter. Bluesky hasn't been an adequate replacement for Twitter in terms of generating certain types of bookings.

 
Regardless of what rates I've charged over the years, there are certain games I don't tolerate. A mantra I reiterate is: my dignity is priceless and cannot be bought. While charging $700 to $900 for an hour in New York City over the last few years, there is certain nonsense I immediately shut down which was the case when I charged $150 for a half hour session back when I started in New Orleans. Haggling is a hard no for me. If *I* decided to offer a special, that was my choice. But whoever asked when I wasn't publicly offering a special was swiftly ignored and blocked.  

 
There are awesome respectful clients. Unfortunately, there are clients who feed off of coercion and circumventing boundaries. When dealing with the latter type of client, it actually has little to do with whether they can afford $300 or $500 or $1,000 and more to do with control and power tripping.

"The goal of a buyer isn't to put money in a seller's pocket."

This logic applies when buying a product from a corporation where you're several degrees of separation from the owner, but not when you're face to face with the "seller" and in this case, gaining access to their body. You should want the providers you see to thrive. If they don't, they won't even be able to see you. As I've said too many times today, it is very expensive to remain in business as an escort.

Think what you want 😇🥰 You weren't going to book me anyway, and I don't pretend to be something that I'm not to appease randoms.

-- Modified on 4/26/2026 12:21:23 AM

Just looked through your post history and all you ever do is throw shots at providers and complain about anything that benefits us. Calling me miserable is projection, but of course you're being upvoted.

Clients/friends have gifted me some very nice things. I want to lower my rates again because I miss gifts. I feel those who charge over $1k an hour don't get as many gifts as they used too at a lower rate.  Do you.

If you want to make $1k offer a foodie date 4 hours. You literally talk & eat food half the time, so it's not behind closed doors work it's fun to get to know people personally it makes the experience better. I would rather entertain in & outside if possible.  

I started as an agency escort it's an upsell hustle. When I became independent I never did GFE, or PSE. Everything was covered. $300 - massage, $500 -FS & my favorite BDSM the rate is customized depending on your kink. What is market rate for a longtime stellar reviewed OG? 🤷🏽‍♀️  

I used Gemini & chat gpt and because I am an expert I can charge 20-30% more, than the average provider. I don't want to be, so high that I'm bored & not busy. I'm not sure what my rates should be anymore, but I definitely want more clients/friends who truly value my time & enjoy my company. 🏆

The entitlement you out on display in these posts is a VERY big turn off.  

I dont expect you to last very long in this profession unless you change the attitude beginning with your jaded perception.

Real miserable appears to be the better arranging of these words.

I really don't get where that sense of entitlement comes from.

I don't care about any business, really. Even if I do face to face business with a lawyer, doctor, a mom and pop grocery store, a trade person like a plumber or carpenter. You name it.  

It really doesn't matter to me how good they are doing financially. Just like to them it doesn't matter how well I'm doing. Sellers don't care if their clients, especially if they aren't regs, lose their job or lose money. And why should they?  

 
If their product or service is good, I'll write a good review and when asked for recommendations I'll list them. If their product or service is not good, I'll write a bad review and when asked I'd tell people to not see them.

It's really very simple. My goal as a consumer is to find value that works for me, and in this biz in particular, to find someone who can make my dick feel good. Pay asked sum and receive a product/service in return.  

 
This is why in my opinion reviews "to help" a business are not good reviews. The purpose of a review should be to inform other consumers. Reviews "to help" often include family and friends reviews, which mean they are they're just giving positive reviews because they know you. Those are not good reviews nor are they organic.

He obviously has some stress in his life which seems to be causing him to make bad choices and terrible business decisions.

You will never convince him of your view point.
He's like a lot of liberals, they hear and see the truth but once they make up their minds the only truth that matters is their truth, period.

As someone who has spent the last year navigating this industry, my approach is now based on value and verified quality. I’ve found that high rates don't always guarantee high satisfaction, so I prefer to keep first-time meetings within a smaller budget.  I am open to higher compensation for established, long-term arrangements where there is mutual chemistry and trust I believe Queenbia said it.  I’m looking for providers who prioritize the client experience over a quick 'Benjamin,' and I tend to be skeptical of overly curated reviews.  For me, a premium rate is earned through a top-tier connection.  I do appreciate where you are tslucyjane and am willing to help your cause but in the end, I need to know my money is being spent in the right way.

Please take your lame political ramblings to the P&R Board.

If we play this game, the same can be said for conservatives and MAGA. None of us agree. And we all love to place blame. How about we keep this type of talk to the politics board?

-- Modified on 4/26/2026 6:44:58 PM

Unless a customer has some interest other than paying for sex, whether or not a provider "thrives" should be of no concern to the customer.   If the customers are honest with themselves, pussy is a commodity that they "consume" (no pun intended) and is fungible with any other pussy.  The difference is not the pussy, it's way the girl markets and delivers it that often steer men to one provider over another.  Oftentimes, "loyalty" becomes a casualty of a price increase, whether it's widgets or pussy, so it doesn't matter if you are dealing directly with the owner, or not.  

 
The fallacy of your analogy is equating corporations with owners.  Often, hundreds of shareholders are the owners rather a single individual, and these owners may also be the customers of the corporation's products or services.  

Eom

I’m not here to be “reasoned with”. I’m here to share my thoughts and opinions and connect with likeminded individuals who have the empathy and intellect to see beyond their own lived experiences. You don’t fit the bill and you clearly have no interest in seeing someone like me, so your commentary means nothing. Continue to be the narcissistic, misogynistic slobbyist that you are. I can’t be gaslit or shamed into keeping my mouth shut about things I deem unfavorable or distasteful in this industry. Call me all the names you want.

You see how weird and unhinged people on this site can be? All I did was ask clients if they were booking multiple hours prior to rates increasing. It’s really not that deep, but clearly I struck a nerve. This is how I know I’m asking the right questions. Thanks for putting trimming in his place.🥰♥️

-- Modified on 4/26/2026 11:55:48 PM

You should come to the PR board, god know your clan needs help over there.

Lucy made a legitimate point that got buried under the reaction to their delivery, and I think that's worth sitting with before anything else. The argument that volume booking behavior at lower rates creates conditions for rate increases is actually correct. It didn't get a fair shot in this thread because the tone gave people permission to dismiss the substance. It's too bad because the question they asked deserved a real answer and they mostly didn't get one.

 
The clients who book one hour, rotate through providers, and optimize for variety over depth aren't doing anything wrong per se. But that pattern, at scale, is part of what makes raising rates the rational response. You can't do both: complain that rates go up and also describe yourself as someone who always books the bare minimum and moves on. Those things are connected even if the connection is uncomfortable.

 
On another note, Buck... I just want to make sure I'm understanding your point. Are you starting with a shorter booking, establishing chemistry, and then investing in longer formats as the relationship develops? That sequencing is reasonable and I don't think anyone would argue with it.

Which is absurd.

 
"
You can't do both: complain that rates go up and also describe yourself as someone who always books the bare minimum and moves on."  

Of course we can. Also there's no concept of "bare minimum" from clients side (unless you count wordplay with the word "bare" , hehe).  

 
From clients side, it's quite clear. You (as in the seller) set your price, I agree to pay that price and I receive service in return. That's it. Client has no obligation besides that. It's not "bare minimum". Bare minimum refers to product or service.  
In no way shape or form am I obligated to repeat, ever.  

 
You want the clients, operating in their own self-interest, to exhibit loyalty to sellers? Even if they might have not liked the experience or want to try others?  

 
What is this nonsense? Your business well being does not concern the client. Can you imagine a restaurant being upset you're not eating there every day? If you want to artificially build loyalty, start with loyalty rewards like they do. Give customers discounts and then maybe they will repeat.  

 
This brings me to an important point. Repeats are EARNED, not given.  

This ultimatum of "you can't complain about the prices unless you repeat" is inane nonsense. Sorry Paige.  

 
Again, you fall into the trap of thinking this is some kind of matchmaking bullshit instead of people spending their cash on a service they're buying. Shopping around and eating at a different spot every day is normal.  

People complaining about price increases, even if they're fully jusitifed, is normal. That's what consumers do.  
Everybody complains about gas prices when they go up, even though the delta spending is actually not much in most cases.

First, you have some fair points. You’re right that clients have no obligation to repeat. But let me be clear, I *never* said they had an obligation to. And you’re right that complaining about price increases is normal consumer behavior. Both of those things are true and I’m not arguing against either of them.

 
But I think you’re arguing against a point I didn’t make. The argument was never that clients owe providers loyalty or repeat business. My argument was a structural observation about how markets respond to demand patterns. A market dominated by one hour rotating volume bookings at low rates creates the conditions for rate increases. Because that’s just how pricing responds to how a market behaves in aggregate.  

 
So YES... you can complain about the outcome and also have contributed to the conditions that created it. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. You just may sound kind of foolish if your self admit to being someone who helped contribute to that vicious cycle.

 
Your restaurant analogy actually demonstrates this better than you intended. A restaurant where every customer orders the cheapest item, never returns, and then complains when prices go up? That restaurant raises prices or closes. I wouldn't say that's punishing disloyalty but rather because the math requires it. Math >>> Obligation.  

 
And while every provider's business doing well may not concern you specifically, it absolutely concerns the clients who enjoy seeing their respective favorite providers and want to keep doing so. Those people have a vested interest in those businesses staying healthy. So that point lands very differently depending on which client we’re actually talking about.

 
On loyalty... I think there’s an assumption running through your reply that the only way to build it is through discounts or rewards programs. I’d push back on that. Clients think if they see you once the doors to Mecca are open. Loyalty gets built through experience, through how someone feels when they leave, and what? CONSISTENCY. Discounts and specials are one mechanism but they're not the only one, and honestly not the one worth competing on because that's a sure fire race to the bottom. There are ways I incentivize loyalty and I don't have to use discounts.  

 
Last thing and I’ll say it once... and this isn’t about sensitivity. But you can be a bit dismissive and at times condescending. I think you know this and I’ve watched you come at people on this board with considerably as much fire as Lucy and sometimes more. You can’t be frustrated by how she shows up when your default register isn’t exactly gentle all the time either. I’ve mentioned this to you before a while back. If anything, I've learned the responses we get here are often a reflection of how we arrive.

But lets be honest...clients decisions here do AFFECT prices, but that is simply how markets function, not something that reflects poorly on us gents. Guys choose providers based on looks, skills, convenience, needs, and of course, affordability, but never with the intention of driving prices up.  
.
Tbh, I don’t think Lucy or Paige were “blaming” clients so much as explaining how client behavior can contribute to upward pressure on rates. As an example, numerous clients flooded the market when vaccines became available in late 2020/early 2021. That rush of high demand ceratinly played a role in the massive rate increases we saw providers post shortly after, but those increases certainly werent the clients "fault" per se.

I think the point that such patterns are part of the story is correct. But the question is about sufficient and necessary in my view. I think there the case weakens a great deal and without digging into things a bit more, some of the things I can think of support the claim, others not. I think if I were to try making the length of the booking argument I'd say consider elasticity of demand for sexual activity and that of "companionship". We get those as a bundle for the most part in this activity. I think, if one assumes the market demand for sex is more inelastic than for companionship, and fairly strongly inelastic, then prices for the shorter session can be increased, and will actually increase total return to the provider as long as the surplus was not already extracted from the market. If not then the prices will not be sustainable, provider returns decline, some leave the market or prices fall.

 
I also think it is worth noting that in this type of activity it's not well modeled as a commodity market. It's more like a real estate market where pretty much everything is unique and the differences dominate the price (two identical houses, even in the same neighborhood can have much different selling prices). And the more personal aspect does also have some impact, which most here seem to get when they acknowledge things like no AA policies or some age policy. Very clearly the idea of freedom of association is present here that is not seen as valid for a corporation offering services or products to the general public. But, that does not support the view that somehow consumers in personal services (here I'm not limiting it to just P4P) are expected or need to have any personal concern for the success of the person providing the services. Quite often they might because people do tent to form attachments over time through personal interactions but that is outside the issue of the commercial relationship.

And sage as ever.  

However, I feel compelled to interject here the other elephant in the other corner of the room. I sincerely hope that providers such as yourself and Lucy realize that being rational economic actors is in no way meant to diminish or besmirch your professionalism and esteem. Let's face it--we're in a weird corner of the world where intense physical intimacy meets commerce. That makes this a place ripe for misunderstandings. I've been guilty of using the GPS sobriquet and I've finally sworn off it. Either I can afford an hour with a lady, or I can't; everything else is dicta.

 
On the other hand, a player who counts his shekels and behaves according to a budget is doing so because of the simple realty that the money all comes from the same place--our discretionary income. I don't get a separate P4P paycheck; i have to make decisions here relative to all the other (non-intimate) services and goods I purchase. That doesn't mean we equate a human being (and the intimacy they provide) with a burger or a trip to Disneyland. With a couple of notable exceptions, I don't think any player here fails to grasp the infinite difference between allowing someone to be physically intimate with you vs. selling automobiles. As much as a man can understand a woman (which--granted--ain't much) we get it. It just means the money bucket is only so wide and deep for all of us and for ALL the goods and services we want. Could we be more understanding and less reductive and dismissive in the way we all talk about it? Sure. I'll try my best.

If it hasn't been clear to this point, I respect what you do, I love that you do it, and I never want even to suggest that this isn't a unique and special activity. Please keep doing it.😁

-- Modified on 4/27/2026 5:48:38 PM

For someone who has a very good command of the English language, when you utter a phrase that is used to describe a product or a service in such a way, it clearly accuses a client of "doing only the minimum".

Whereas, my whole point is that this minimum does not exist from client side.  

The seller makes x packages that cost y and we choose one that we like. There shouldn't ever be a penalty or any negative connotation with choosing a certain package as long as it's offered by you.

I usually don't use that word, but it's really gaslighting a client when you try to call his choices "bare minimum". You're essentially calling any clients who do that "cheap and who should spend more money on other packages.

In other words, if I pay my Costco membership and only come there to eat their 1.5 dollar hotdog meals, I should not be called cheap or doing the bare minimum. I paid for my membership and I do what I want to do. Why should I be punished for jumping on a good deal? Why should I hear that it's my actions of buying cheap food are the cause of prices rising? Maybe you aren't selling enough hot dogs or enticing other clients to buy other goods?  

And no, there are other solutions like doing more volume that helps you offset the price. Now I'm not going to say you should or are expected to explore these options. Because it's your body and it will always be your call. But I disagree with blaming the customer or saying they're hypocritical.  

A lot of customers will jump on a good deal because they think it's good value. Nothing wrong with that.  

 
If you don't see how such phrasing and term accuses client of not spending more, I'm not sure what else I can say here.

Bare minimum as a phrase certainly implies owing repeat business, loyalty, and in general spending more money than the clients have spent. So I suggest never using that term again when pertaining to buyers of any goods or services because of the implications.

 
"there’s an assumption running through your reply"  

That's a bad assumption, and I never made it. There are many ways to build a loyalty. The point was that the client doesn't owe jack shit to the seller and it's on the seller to create things that would entice the buyer to come back again. Please don't discounts or whatever as end be all. It was just one example I made.  

 
I'm not really frustrated with Lucy. If anything I find it fun to argue. I am aware of what I sound like too, but I also am not selling anything with that said I've been trying to tone myself down a little bit and engage in a little bit more tact. So it's nothing personal, really. It's never personal.  

Cheers

It’s everyone else not him

There are so many nuanced aspects of sex work that are incomparable to other industries which is a reality you insist on obscuring. I've touched on this in the "tough grader" thread. And even within sex work, there's a monumental difference between what independent companions have to consider when compared with providers at a "K-girls" agency as an example... Why you (seemingly) think you're an expert at selling sexual services just because you're a client is mind boggling. There are endless behind the scenes factors that you're completely unaware of.

 
You suggest sex workers could do "more volume" instead of "punishing" clients by raising rates. In theory, that makes sense. In 2016, there were more options available for companions to be able to do so. Here is one scenario. If a companion changed nothing else about their brand or appearance, didn't raise or lower their rates, didn't manage profiles on a dozen different social media, blogging, newsletter, clips, or fan engagement platforms, there is one thing they could do to generate more inquiries and very likely guarantee more bookings. They could simply spend more on paid ads.  

 
Several years ago, it was common for providers to spend several hundred dollars or even more than $1k per month across different paid advertising sites. In that era, I'd gleefully head to the pharmacy to load hundreds of dollars on prepaid cards to post or bump my Backpage ads because the expense would be more than worth it. SESTA / FOSTA changed the landscape and as of now, there are exponentially fewer effective ad sites. Based on my understanding, Tryst allows up to two different profile categories per provider. If a provider wanted to boost visibility for "more volume," the most they could do is get approved for one more profile and still be capped out at $350 for advertising. Tryst had an AMA last year for sex workers to voice concerns and recommend changes. Many companions, myself included, were begging them to implement higher subscription tiers, paid bumps, or similar changes so we could have the option to throw more money at them and spend more than just $175 or $350 per month advertising with them.

 
There is so much that's going over your head when it comes to why companions are making certain choices about how they operate. So again, I find Lucy's line of questions to be topical. Regarding Paige's points, what she said and what many people would take away from her detailed clarifications are quite clear despite your projections. Echoing what she said, there is a client "bare minimum." I'll go further and say I personally curate some of the experiences I do or don't offer around that notion because in some cases offering certain services during a short session has literal emotional or even physical safety implications for me which I viscerally learned years ago.

 
Certain benefits or enhancements, even if they're subtle or unspoken, not being available to a client who books one hour once is not a punishment. It's not cruelty or oppression as you've evoked with your Civil Rights Movement reference(s) in previous discussions. It's peak fragility to act as if "bare minimum" is an attack. It's literally a perspective and corelating word choice to describe said perspective. You're not mandated to agree, but you'd have a completely different experience here if you actually considered what other people are saying with a greater level of mindfulness. It really comes across strongly how fun it is for you to argue so that's the only thing you said that resonates.

-- Modified on 4/29/2026 9:14:15 PM

Mocking and ridiculing her because she is black or a TS … actually it is clearly  both.

The poster you are upset with was not replying to our Black/TS poster, but to trimming. Now, I don't know what race he is but he hasn't reviewed any TS providers let alone being one.

But I take issue with your entire premise.
1) Why would anyone expect guys to be happy with the price increases of the past few years? Should we also like paying more for gas, groceries and other consumer products?
2) Why judge guys who (like me) see a lot of girls and only see regulars a few times a year? That's just the way we're built. Why go negative on us Especially if we're kind, clean and don't try to pound a girl for an hour straight.
3) Why describe us as "slinging" our dicks all over the place? I guess we should not assume that's what you prefer to do with yours, but I think I detect a double standard.
4) You are the one choosing to be a "low end" provider, not us. You can charge more if you want to and see how that works. But your "need to reach certain goals" is hardly our concern. You are free to run your business however you want but coming here to complain about it while slamming us is what I'd call bad form. Please feel free to charge $1k per hour and see how it goes.  I don't pretend to know much about the world of TS providers, never having seen one but I think they tend to get less per hour than GGs. If so, that's a shame but best of luck.

But what I like to think I know well of is consumer protection.

And I know - no matter the industry - a client never has an obligation and there is no such thing as bare minimum

 
"You suggest sex workers could do "more volume" instead of "punishing" clients by raising rates."

Thats not what I said, at all. Paige commented that I said the only way to artificially raise loyalty is a loyalty program. And I replied, nope that is not the case and I never said it, there are other ways to do it.

 
I also never said you can't impose whatever limitations you wish on any package you wish.  

The point is after you decide which package are which there is no "bare minimum". We simply choose whichever package you  made available. We have zero obligation to you - or any other seller of anything - to ever come back or choose any other package.  

Sorry, spare me the theatrical "oh you just don't know" stuff when you really have little to no substance to say here.

You claim "bare minimum" concept exists for a client but you fail to answer why call someone that when you're the one who sets the rates and agrees to packages.

 
No, sorry. "bare minimum" is a concept of a deliverable by a seller. We don't do "bare minimum", we give you money at rates we agreed on upon.

Looking down on a client simply because he chooses one of a sellers cheaper packages or/and doesn't give repeat business, is fucked up. In no way shape or form is a client obligated to ever return. Give me a few reasons why you think client has this obligation. A client could never speak a word to you again, and that is well within his right.  

Oh and I also ignored the personal bullshit you chose to employ here right after I said it ain't personal. You're choosing to focus on me, my propensity for arguing and other nonsense over the fact that customers don't have a deliverable and that there is no such thing such as "bare minimum".

It's used in a negative connotation here just like the word "cheap" gets thrown around. The word cheap often attempts to insult clients and make them feel bad for getting value or not spending excessively. It's similar thing here.  

 
Turning nose up on customers who buy the cheapest rates of yours, even if you set those rates yourself, is certainly a choice. Instead of cherishing that client for even choosing to spend his time and money with/on you, you are considering him "bare minimum" like he owed you anything. And by you I don't mean you personally. But Jesus christ.

-- Modified on 5/1/2026 12:53:12 AM

Lena said what needed to be said and said it better than I could have. The advertising context and how it's changed should put the “just do more volume” suggestion to rest permanently. And yes, you did say in an earlier reply "there are other solutions like doing more volume that helps you offset the price.” The safety point, that certain experiences (like pro submissive) aren’t available in shorter bookings because of literal emotional and physical safety implications is one of the most important things said in this entire thread. I’d encourage anyone still reading to sit with that one because it reframes this entire conversation.  

 
Now, to the semantics battle we’ve apparently paused a real discussion to have.

 
I want to engage with you in good faith here because I think you read “bare minimum” and immediately said, "Paige is being mean to me and others who only book an hour." I understand why the phrase carries that connotation in some contexts. But that genuinely wasn’t how I meant it and I think if you’re willing to use your thinking cap for a moment and go back and read what I actually said, the neutral reading is actually more logical in context.

 
Here’s a real world example. The other day I was in a strategy meeting for my other business. We were discussing whether to raise membership prices beginning Q3. The reason it came up was that a segment of our clientele, around 20% aren't tipping, purchasing add-on products, or spending beyond the base service despite reporting loving the experience (and we've spent a lot of time to improve the client experience over the last year) and having a great rapport with staff. Meanwhile, like any discretionary expense, our operating costs are increasing, a lot of our products come from overseas, and something has to absorb that cost. So, we talked about the clients who were doing the "bare minimum". Nobody in that room was being mean about those clients, or calling them cheap, or bad people. It was just a neutral operational observation. "This segment books the shortest sessions and the least expensive services, so if costs go up, something has to give." That’s it. That’s the register we were using.  

 
So here's where I'll meet you halfway. I’ll concede in good faith that the phrase landed differently than I intended for you and probably for others reading. That’s fair. But I’d ask for the same good faith in return. Not every word choice is an ambush.

 
What I won’t concede is the actual argument, which you still haven’t actually engaged with because I think you can't. I think you're so inclined to stand on this "consumer rights" hill because it’s the only hill where you’re technically, yes... technically, correct and can’t be challenged. Again, we are agreed that clients have no moral or legal obligation to repeat. Nobody contested that. But it is very narrow ground and you're using it as a rhetorical move to avoid the actual structural point that was being made. A market dominated by clients who book volume rotating, rarely repeating, one hour sessions at low rates creates the conditions for rate increases. So yes... you can complain about the outcome and also have contributed to the conditions that created it. Those things aren't mutually exclusive and they never were. It's two separate conversations but they keep being conflated to make this comfortable for you.  

 
One last thing worth naming because I don't think it's been said clearly enough. This entire conversation started with Lucy's specific situation: a provider charging $350 an hour whose inquiries are almost exclusively one hour bookings and who is trying to figure out how to hit her financial goals. THAT is the context. My observations were about that context.  

 
At $350 an hour, a client base of rotating one hour bookings that rarely repeat is a *genuine* structural problem and the math on raising rates is pretty straightforward. My thoughts on this would be very different if we were talking about a provider charging at least $800 an hour because at that rate the client profile is typically (keyword is typically) beginning to shift quite differently and the same argument doesn't carry the same weight. But that's not what Lucy was describing.  

 
So.... before we go any further, it's worth asking how much of this argument has been a response to a conversation that wasn't actually happening.

You make a reasonable sounding point about the connection between "brand loyalty" and price stability, but does that really work in a large market? If a large enough number of clients restrict their business to a handful of providers, doesn't that make the barrier to entry higher (e.g. new competitors find it harder to dislodge clients from existing providers) and incentivize the existing providers to raise rates anyway?  If a lady knows her clients will always come back, she can start raising my rates; even if she loses a few, the net effect should be an increase in her revenue.  In other words, I'm not sure brand loyalty at a macro level will do anything more than encourage price increases anyway.  

 
Anyway, I think this is actually an interesting question. This "market" is so unlike any other that I'm not sure it really follows the same rules we all learned in Econ 101.  I very much appreciate that you and other providers are willing to engage on the topic. Maybe old dogs such as me can still learn.

I have two dinner dates, a dinner and a broadway show date scheduled for this month and in the process of working out a FMTY in June. Initially, they did not book me for extremely long sessions; one booked 1.5 hours and the other two booked 2 hours and another I saw regularly for one hour for the last two years. They arranged the extended date packages because they were satisfied with me and wanted to move things forward and explore more. Although we all had phenomenal chemistry and an amazing time equally enjoyed, their actions were inherently self-interested. I just happen to be the product they want. I believe your mindset might need a paradigm shift. No man does anything for a woman solely because it benefits her. It will always be of most benefit to him. And especially if he’s paying you! However, if you are skilled at what you do, you will also gain from it. That’s why having the right mindset is sooo important in this business. You receive back exactly what you put in. 

Bonsoir boys! ❤️

You are the voice of reason and experience .
You think Lucy will listen?

Seriously though, right on!

First, I would say you try to argue in good faith except not really, again your word choices give it away. Kinda.  

"I'll concede that the phrase landed different for you" I'll let others decide how much to a concession this statement really is. It's the same ilk as "im sorry I hurt your feelings" being framed as a genuine apology. Lol

 
"Again, we are agreed that clients have no moral or legal obligation to repeat. Nobody contested that. "  

Literally Lucy contested that. This is just a false statement. She literally said that we should be interested in the provider thriving. So please. Not cool to just lie.  

 

Also to be pedantic, since you agree that client has no obligation to repeat or choose another package with the seller, can we make it no obligation of any type, not just the ones listed by you? You explicitly listing types of obligation imply that there may be others. Client has none provided the usual assumptions (paid in full obviously, not a troublemaker etc).  

Not every word choice is an ambush, but these ambushes do exist and they're often filled with snakes. So I like to cut the grass and get to the roots.  

 
Now next, you say I did not engage in a discussion. I have. I literally discussed what this topic was about.  

Look in this very thread under a post titled "I don't see the correlation here."
It literally addresses everything you mentioned.  

If we established that buyers have zero obligation, blaming them for NOT seeing a small handful of providers and repeats is silly, right?  

So if buyers choosing your cheapest package and not repeating, means you can't stay afloat they aren't the ones to blame. Your overconfidence in the business model is to blame. As they say, overconfidence can be a slow and insidious killer.  

So no, I maintain there is zero correlation here.  

Clients don't read minds and don't know how good your business is going and they aren't obligated to. As far as I'm concerned, as long as I pay your rates and buy things I consider of value to myself, I should be considered a good customer. I'm spending my money on your biz. To somehow think I'm responsible for your business struggling and going belly up without price raising, is imo preposterous.  

 

Next, I'm glad you brought up your company and for two reasons.  

First, if you said "baseline service" instead of "bare minimum" it would avoid many of my issues with phrasing. These two phrases have different connotations.

 
Second, since you have that experience you might know why people don't like enshittification and it's underlying issue.  

Customers don't care if a business initially operates at a loss. They cares about value so many businesses operate at a loss to get a large customer base and provide great value. But then to actually make money they start deliberately making their product worse by introducing paid  premium features and intrusive ads etc. And now because people dont like to pay for this crap now companies like yours enforce price raising. And the customer is blamed for your attempt to make more money on a product people are good with paying for baseline service but don't want to have money milked out of them.. customers aren't interested in your company or your wallet doing well. Sorry.  

 
It is not the customers problem that you chose to structure your business model like that. The customer doesn't care that Uber didn't make money initially. The customer cared they can get from a to b fast and cheap.  

 

Lucy asked a general question, here let me quote her

"A lot of you complain about providers’ rates increasing and reminisce on the “glory days” before rates were what they are now, but I have to ask if you were booking more than 1 hour back when the rates were more “reasonable”? Were you seeing a SMALL HANDFUL of providers on a regular basis and treating them extremely well, or were you slinging your dick all over the place and never seeing the same girl more than once or a few times a year for a one hour incall?"

 
And I replied that there is no correlation between clients choosing how to do business, and providers struggling/prices rising nor should the providers attempt to blame a customer who simply chooses value as it pertains to them.

Clients should not *ever* feel responsible for a providers business. And now if I'm traveling and decide to have no strings attached sex for one night, and forget it the next day....now I need to feel guilty that I spent one night with a provider at her cheapest rate? Why? Why do I need to feel like I contributed to her rates rising? It makes no sense.  

 
The seller has only one person to blame if her or his biz model fails. Well, more if she has an assistant or a manager but you get the point. Don't act like consumers who do cheapest "one and done" are supposed to feel guilty or responsible for prices going up.