Reading a post by a hobbyist who was recounting a conversation that he had with a provider concerning ethnicity started me to wondering about something else that I have seen on occasion.  Some providers and agencies seem to select clients based upon the person's economic echelon.  Typically those providers or agencies seldom advertise in places like EROS and Exotics.  This is of interest to me from a philosophical standpoint.  Does other hobbyists or providers have any knowledge of a tendency of some providers and agencies to select clients from only high-end economic classes?

are u kiddin', money is the only class that talks in this business.

Sure,
The high end agencies expect you to have the money to be with them more than once and not just a one time fling, so sure they credential you economically

Do other hobbyists or providers have any knowledge of a tendency of some providers and agencies to select clients from only high-end economic classes?

I see more into this question than what you've posted here.
When a lady has a business wherein she is selective of her clients, she has some things to consider in a way that is more logical than discriminating, although it can easily be perceived that way.

Money is money - it's green, and fits nicely in an envelope. How it related to the individuals' budget, or number of hours to earn, is immaterial. How easily it comes and goes by him, or how hard he had to work for it, and how hard it is to depart with it, is immaterial. (I hope I'm making sense here. It's not always easy to relay thoughts so others grasp your intent)

Let's say for example, there is a man who is an auto mechanic working for a chain auto repair shop - Firestone, Midas, or something. He emails a Provider for a date.
Let's say you have another gentleman who might've been a Professional (perhaps an attorney, or a doctor) but who had a bum set of circumstances, lost his license or business, recently went through a divorce, maybe lost his home, and maybe now is renting an apartment while he starts over. He emails a provider for a date.

What are some things a provider might be thinking about these two men as prospective clients?

Now let's say she has a client who is a dentist, doctor, attorney, CEO, self-employed with many employees, and is married. What are some things she would be thinking in terms of these clients versus those in the other categories?

Which are 'best', 'safest', and are more likely to provide her with privacy, and being discreet?
How so?

When I first started in this business, I hooked up with a woman who'd been in this business 16 years. She told me never to take a client who was down on his luck, broke, etc. Do you know why?

There are so many factors to consider and some of them are mental state.

It's not all about money.

The story they tell me is that the guys like the girls and the girls like the money!

When I first started a year ago in this business, I used to think that the men with the higher paying jobs would bring in the most money for me as well? But that did not usualy hold true at all.

Now when a prospective client emails me or calls me. I listen to him, I try to read his demenor. And by doing this I often, am able to tell wether or not I would like to see him.
I would rather have a gentleman that treats me well,show's up on time,well groomed, and protecs my anonimity like Sedona said previously. That to me is key.
What a man does for a living is inconsequential to me anymore, money is money. If that man is proud of what he does, and treats me like a lady,can hold a conversation, and is safe and not tacky. That is what it is all about to me.

it's kind of a subtle question of how much money you make.

But, not all clients or agencies are the same.

Some agencies cater to wealthier men through additional services. Some wealthier men like the relationship and exclusivity this type of agency provides.

A small exclusive agency that caters to the wealthy will most likely have fewer clients. So, they have more time to spend getting to know the desires and needs of their wealthy clients. These guys are paying a premium for what they percieve is added service.

jmo

is in your own method of determination. You've ruled out the 'red flags' yourself:
"Now when a prospective client emails me or calls me. I listen to him, I try to read his demenor. And by doing this I often, am able to tell wether or not I would like to see him."

You are able to determine the RISK factor just by talking with him. Whether you've pinpointed the particular characteristics, you are probably looking for what every Provider wants in a client: confidence, well balanced, head on straight, respectful, etc.

We all want the client who is low maintenance, comes and goes (puns intended), but with whom you have a wonderful rapphor.

Or as one lady put it, if you imagine your client being likely to be drunk some night with his buddies and blabbing and bragging, don't see him. It only takes that one time to ruin things. Just ask one of our favorite ladies here about some dumbass roofers who couldn't keep quiet.
You take your chances, hope you play it right, and hope your choices are good ones.
So far, mine have. Love 'em!

That is without risking a STD or whatever they don't do.

The risk factors you mention are just as applicable to some clients as they are to commercial companions. Since you made mention of it in your post, I have found in my vast experience, that drunk ladies talk far more excessively than drunk men. During the initial telephone conversation I am quite quick to discern if the commercial companion has her feet firmly planted to earth or is floating around somewhere. If a lady wishes to screen me, I am more than willing to be screened, with the only proviso being that I will screen her just as aggressively. If the lady wants to verify me, she must be willing to be verified herself. I can totally appreciate why a commercial companion may feel the need to take some added precautions, but certain clients require some safeguards as well.

For any commercial companion that request pertient information from me, I simply communicate to her that I believe it is in the best interest of both parties to maintain their anonymity. The vast majority of the time the lady can fully appreciate this and does not go any further. However, on those few occasions where the lady persists and still seeks some information, I then explain to her that if I give her the information she requests it would then place me at a distinct disadvantage, as she would know more personal information about me than I would about her. I tell the commercial companion this is unacceptable and if she wishes to level the playing field, so to speak, and divulge equally revealing information about herself we may then be able to get together.

It has only been necessary for me to take this type of "fair is fair" approach 4 or 5 times. In each instance, after explaining myself, there was a good 30-45 seconds of silence, as the commercial companion really did not initially know how to respond. All the ladies, except one, told me they were sorry but the information would be flowing only one way, of which I then bid them a good day and terminated the call. The one lady who continued the conversation explained that she fully understood my perspective and really couldn't counter my rationale. We then got together, but in the end did not exchange any information, and have continued to see each other numerous times since.

Fortunately, my wife and I have a rather satisfactory sexual relationship, so I'm never really horny/desperate, which in turn allows me to take a very calm and cautious approach who I see. For the most part, my gut instincts and overall general sense has served me well, although I must admit there have been a couple of loonies that somehow slipped through. I believe quite strongly that both participants should be equally selective and discriminating. What is good for the client should be good for the commercial companion, and vice versa.

The context in which this was mentioned was a comparison of categories of clientele.

It was meant more relative to say, perhaps, like the car insurance industry. Somewhere along the way, car insurance companies have determined who are better, and who are worst risks. So, they have different risk-rates for age, gender, smoking, and non-smoking. I think the 'worst' rates are for those who are: single male smokers, under the age of 25.

In the Hobby, many providers won't see clients under age 35 (there are always exceptions), and some have valid reasons why they prefer to only see married clients versus single clients.
The reasoning makes sense.
The author of this thread had a question, and my posts were supplying him with some of the thinking where some of the determinations are made.

So, as an example, who would be a more prospective client for a provider between these two:
A) 49 year old married self employed man with 50 employees
B) 34 year old single man who works (employed) as a mechanic?

While the author asked about 'money' being the determining factor (wages), I wanted to show that it might not be the 'money' but other factors.

Does this make sense?

The only color that counts in this hobby, is the color of money.

NCF

NOSC hit it on the head.  I personally prefer seeing providers for extended periods, BECAUSE the provider can afford to not take other clients in such a situation, not always the case but most of the time I am the only one that a provider seems to see on a day that I tie up time.  I prefer to see someone who is fresh and that comes at a price.  I try to insure that I am the first on the day of my appointment.  I generally have enough cash to avoid the meat market provider and do everything that I can to do so.

Which makes sense from a business perspective.  If you look for people with money, it is reasonable to pitch to people based on class or profession.

Since you prefer to converse only with those who use punctilious grammer and impeccable syntax, you should know better than to end a sentence with a preposition.

Freshman student at Harvard asks professor "Where is the library at". Condescendingly the prof huffs "At Harvard we don't end a sentence with a preposition" to which  the student replys " Oh sorry! Where is the library at, asshole."

Hey love, I meant no offence, and in no way meant this as a method to disparage you or your expression. I wasn't trying to put you in your place (your turn of phrase), but given the proper circumstance I would gladly put you in your place if you allowed me the pleasure of  assuming the proper place or position suitable for the occasion. There was no intent to demean or instruct, but rather this post was a clumsy contrivance to introduce a favorite joke of mine meant to squash the arrogance of pedantry. I always enjoy your posts and seek them out along with those of Sedona and Mara. There are others posts from the female perspective that are interesting but are not as consistently so as those of  you gals. I'm sorry that you took umbrage at my attempt of humor, and hope that it didn't distress you. I will love you still even though you might misspell a word or two, or split the infinitive, or etc..

-- Modified on 1/23/2004 12:02:05 PM