...I am by no means the most experienced "hobbyist" and was wondering about the correlation between the amount of $$ spent and how enjoyable the session is.  In my limited experience paying more has not necessarily translated into a better experience.  The provider I've enjoyed being with the most happens to be the one I payed the least to see.  Am interested in hearing how you guys (or girls) feel.  In your opinion, does a higher rate mean a better time--or does it all come down to that thing we call chemistry?

ChemistryChemistryChemistryoh, and did I mention Chemistry?thats my 2 cents worth!LMps-I have a FS provider I see once or twice a week. Granted YMWV she is my ultimate GFE to the extent that I must constantly remind myself that this is simply that--GFE *not* GF.  This becomes more difficult when we are simply out on a date as friends without the meter running. As I have been wont to say in the past, no girlfriend ever treated me this well, not even the ones I married.LMpps- This all may be moot.  My "retirement" draws near.  I have dodged more than a few "bullets" and grow weary of the chase...More will be revealed.LM--modified by lustman at Tue, May 15, 2001, 22:08:53--modified by lustman at Tue, May 15, 2001, 22:11:41

...so LM, you're saying it's chemistry, huh?  Thanks.--modified by 2K1 at Tue, May 15, 2001, 22:06:44

it aint oatcakes!--modified by lustman at Tue, May 15, 2001, 22:13:43

=)--modified by 2K1 at Tue, May 15, 2001, 22:14:16

Lustman's got it right.  I think there are a few of us around on this board with somewhat similar "profiles" - 50 something or close, been around the hobby over 20 years, had girlfriends, been married (multiple "pops" and have lots of experience with intelligent, sexy women as well as some "nasties" and more ripoffs than we like to admit.  I don't think it's too difficult for us to indentify each other (i.e. the profile) or for any observent reader to do so.Price v. quality and all that seems to be a thread that arises frequently and is it Mathesar that attempted to correlate ratings with price?In any event, my 20 plus tells me that price often has little correlation (above a certain minimum - the self-respect price of the provider I'll call it) between how any one of us and a lady gets along and the sexual fireworks.  Lustman is so right on: it's chemistry and always YMMV.I've met some of the top rated providers on in TER and while I really enjoyed the experience, it wasn't necessarily "knock my socks off."  On the other, hand I see someone whose ratings a good but not fabulous and we click - as human beings and in the heat of passion.  Long ago the concept of money vanished from the relationship.  I don't think much about spending it and she's forgotten it before.  At the same time, if there was anything she ever needed in life, I'd give it to her in a quick minute if I could.  I've never "needed" something from her and probably wouldn't but I'd trust her with my life.I've had a couple of those relationships over the years - one's now married with two great kids and we still talk just about every week (we ended up like former lovers who became friends), the other moved on with her life (she's got her masters degree and a great job) and is afraid to maintain any contact with her past.  I understant that.  But if she called tommorow and needed some help- she'd get it.I'd be interested in the comments of some of the other guys who've "been around" the hobby for a long time.  Mostly, after you've seen enough of it, I think it very much begans to resemble the relationships one developes in the, shall we say, more conventional aspects of life. --modified by foolishjon at Wed, May 16, 2001, 00:01:47

Hi Lustman!Doing the M&M thang... where are you?!Retirement?!  I don't think so  I won't let you!XXXOOO AshleyPS: Can't even type right now... you know why!  Did someone say "Hot tub?" OPA!!  Jeez... now I have the munchies!

I am not sure if there is a different with the service being on the other side and all. But as Lustman  to point out, it is about chemistry. It's wonderful to click in a way that I can feel comfortable with a guy. I love talking and hearing about other people's life's experiences ( I have even learned some new positions LOL!!!). We as providers, all have different rates for whatever reason. What I don't like is when someone puts me down because they can't afford it, therefore wants to make me feel bad. I didn't see the reply to my visit in New York on TBD last night, but another provider sent me a note letting me know what had happened and her retaliation on my behalf. Calling a girl a street whore and ridiculing her site on an open forum is where this internet stuff has gotten to and it sucks. I have a vision of this guy as a poor, pathetic looser who is most definately scared of women. Thank God for online anonyminity huh? But my point is that we are all different as providers, and you guys are different as hobbyists. We realize this in you, but it seems hard for some of you to realize this in us. Just my .02$

was I mistaken, or did you not say "I'll call you back inan hour and a half" ???  Was I supposed to call you?Oh well, I needed some rest after the trauma of the evening.Dodging real bullets is just going to become part of livingin this neighborhood I guess!See you at lunch later today!LM

some other thoughts...sometimes if you have an avarage session and you droppped $$$+  you might feel ripped off.  the same session @ $$ would be remembered as a real value.   And a $ session that went a little far would be a bonanza.   So price is in the mix, but LM is still right- chem is king!I have had $$ FBSM/FS sessions that were not as memorable as $+ FBSM/HJ/CBJ sessions where the provider was clearly having fun too!

While I haven't been involved in this hobby nearly as long as some others, I'd have to say I've found it is definitely that hard-to-really-define chemistry that is by far paramount to the enjoyment of the experience.  In the relatively short time I've been "active" I've sampled the low-medium-higher (not highEST) portions of the price scale & found that the $ didn't have that much correlation.  One of my best experiences has been on the higher end, but also one of my most disappointing.  Of course the more being spent the higher our own expectations probably are, & therefore the more likely we are to feel disappointed with a good to average experience.  We simply don't expect as much if we're only dropping pocket change.  I've personally seen more gals in the median range & on the whole have been just as happy as when I've spent more.  Again...it may have something to do with expectations, but I don't think it's necessary to drop a bundle to be left with a very contented smile on your face. At least it hasn't been for me.

eom

eom

eom

wow, well said...  foolishjon!!  I always find your post so enlightening!!  seriously!  ^_^

I also agree with chemistry but entwined in chemistry, to me, is attitude. Attitude, like chemistry, is hard to quantify. And it does not necessarily equate to the amount one pays the provider.

I was thinking chemistry included attitude.In the study of bicameral nomenclature and theclassification of living things, there are lumpersand splitters, I tent to be a lumper who splits;and not a splitter who lumps.But then bicameral nomenclature is Biology not Chemistry!Way too much education.LM

--

Nope, It is chemistry, chemistry, chemistry, that makes for the best times. Oatcakes have nothing to do with it! Chemistry and not staying out of hot tubs.

My understanding is that romance is a matter of chemistry and that great sex is a matter of physics and geometry!  So what are we talking about here! lolAs to --too much education, I am not even going to go there!--JP

Yes, I think we are talking physics here for the most part! What goes up, must come down! Course, if it never goes up, then it might be chemistry! LOL! Naughtiest Nicole Of Southern Californiaxxx

I hate to be the naysayer here but the numbers show a positive correlation between price and performance. (Mathesar et al… 2001)  Now it is not a strong correlation and one must keep in mind that there is not a causation just a correlation.The reasons for this?  Don’t really know but one of the stronger hypotheses is that if a courtesan charges more she can see less people per day/week and therefore has more chemistry to give to the equation when seeing you.  Remember the rule of chemistry "Mass/energy is neither...” So as wonderful as the ladies can be there is only so much they can give in a day and still be wonderful.  And no I have not forgotten the fact that they could be making more money by working as much as possible, but the economic reality of the situation is that humans are not the optimizers of economics as my friends at Hoover and others places would tell us.  Humans tend to optimize more for leisure and time.  Will be glad to discuss this in another thread but not here if that is okay with everyone.Another factor that could influence price and performance could be that if a patron pays that much money there is a strong incentive to rationalize the experience as better than it was.  This one is a little fuzzier as the inverse should be in effect and that is not seen in the data --yet.Now keep in mind there is an even more significant correlation between price and appearance ((Mathesar et al… 2001) which makes sense in our culture.  But this too would impact the performance value as the patron may again influence the performance score unconsciously by saying a courtsean was better because she was beautiful.But lets look at the data in a different way.  If we posit that chemistry is random and should effect Higher priced (300-400) providers the same as lower priced (100-200) than if we search the database we find that the HP who have an average performance score of 8-10 to be 258 but the same criteria for LP =119.Is this statistically significant?  Very possible, but this one test is filled with all kinds of confounding and methodological issues that I did not address.  But at the first blush the results do not support the hypothesis that there is no correlation between price and performance.So what are my two moles worth on this? (we are still talking chemistry here, right?) No money does not guarantee anything on performance but that like size, money does matter but also like size it does not matter as much as you think it would.(ladies please at least let me keep this rationalization -about size that is).  And why?  Well as lustman said there is that chemistry thing going on to confusion and delight the issue.  And if you need more confusion well then bring in the statistics.--JP--modified by JP at Thu, May 17, 2001, 09:30:23

Yes, as lustman put it, it's chemistry. For me, a relative newbie, my better experiences have not been with the lower end, but on the $$$ and up. Sometimes it seems the extra $ goes into a nicer environment for the encounter where the feel is more of a home than a jobsite. I think that this is why my one experience at a MP left little desire to return. Even still $ alone definitely does not guarantee that you'll get what you are looking for. pt

I couldn't agree with you more, especially that last paragraph...LOLpt

Environment! Yes, I find that key also. Why I prefer higher end hotels for outcall over Holiday Inns, etc. Has a mood effect on both parties I believe! Why IF I were able to do incall my environment would have to be very posh and comfortable, very sexy, romantic. Although it is amazing what a few scented candles and the right music can do, not to mention the right attitude on both parties part of excitement and anticipation!!Naughtiest Nicole xxx

While not meaning to detract from anything you've said, I think it is possible to over-apply scientific analysis (mathematical or otherwise) to what is essential a human emotion, which by its nature resists such analysis. I would cite "love" as an example, albeit an extreme one.  Of course if I have any area of expertise, it is not in any of the scientific discplines..so this is merely my completely unsubstantiated opinion.I found you mentioned two things with which I agree 100%, & I don't recall them being mentioned elsewhere in this thread.When price allows a lady to see fewer clients, it should make it possible for her to be at her best & thus "maximize" the experience.  While this happens, does this always happen?  I agree the odds are improved, but I also doubt it as few things "always" happen.  There are probably a few to whom the higher price doesn't mean fewer clients, but simply more money.  While this may be a small minority in the larger picture, it still serves to illustrate that there is no guarantee.  In the case of my own most disappointing foray into the upper end of the price scale, all the time in the world wouldn't have made it worthwhile.I also have felt that it seems appearance plays perhaps an even larger role in the influence of price than does performance of service.  Speaking only for myself, appearance means far less  than performance.  Another previously unmentioned factor could be what specific services are provided.  I'll admit to not having given this much thought..mainly because I have only a few basic "requirements" & there are some things in which I have neither interest or curiosity.  Any woman who is at least reasonably attractive, & minus anything that I find physically unappealing, could still be capable of sending me through the roof.  "Chemistry" has been a central theme in this thread, & to me these are some of its componets in no particular order; attitude-personality-ability to hold an interesting coversation-sense of humor-sound of the voice-sound of the laughter-smile-expressive eyes-gestures-sexy and/or graceful ways of moving.  I'll take this kind of woman any day of the week over the type who are so called "sex symbols" only because of looks.And I can't believe I almost forgot to mention this...she's got to be a good enough actress to make me believe there's a possibility she's enjoying it as much as I am, whether true or not.  Sorry to all who might read this for it being so long-winded..it seems the ability to be consise isn't among my few virtues.    --modified by greywolf at Thu, May 17, 2001, 10:26:11

Psychologists call it "transference."  It's that human tendency to attribute to an attractive person, greater intelligence, humor, personality etc. than is actually there.  It's the low-cut dress at the cocktail party syndrome, that makes all the guys think the wearer is just so smart and witty.  Similarly, if we pay more, many of us will perceive we are having a better time.  Just like appearance tricks us, price makes us mentally "buy-in" to the fact that we are getting a more exclusive experience and it must be better as a result.  Now there are obviously exceptions to this, and old pros such as Greywolf are much less likely to be influenced in this manner as a newbie.  The point is, it's an underlying human flaw in the way we perceive things. I have a lot of experience in the auto industry and these dynamics show up in the research data all the time.  More horsepower (the automotive equivalent of big breasts) makes people think the stereo sounds better, that the quality is better, etc.  Similarly, those paying a high price tend to rationalize the purchase by believing all aspects of the vehicle are better (even when internal data may show they are not).  The minority counterpoint to this is the outraged consumer whose expectation is artificially elevated beyond a reasonable level based on the fact that the price (for him) was too high.  This consumer is rarely happy.We see both types of perceptual "error" or bias in the reviews, it's just human nature.    So while it may be chemisty that makes things click between the sexes, it's psychology that shapes our impressions of the experience- that's why perception is reality.

Dang, some of you guys...err people...just make too much sense. In this area, I would tend to believe that high price would tend to inflate expectations and possibly cause disappointment more so than it would make us perceive it is a better experience just because it costs more. Of course this considering price as the only variable and not considering enhancements to the session that can be added using the extra capital the higher fee provides (ie. an outcall at home as opposed to an incall where some of the higher fee may be used for adding to the atmosphere). But then, this is just my two cents. pt

G2,You've added yet another perspective, one worthy of consideration.  I have only one complaint with your post...why did you have to refer to me as an "old pro"???  You might give others the wrong perception.  LOL

said "seasoned verteran" instead.  I got the impression from your posts that you were in the older and wiser category.  Maybe you should consider a more youthful make-over.  My suggestion: Onlygreyatthetempleswolf.

G2,You are correct perception is reality and if you ask Bohr, Schrödinger and the rest of the QM posse, perception creates reality.The discussion on the psychology of car buying is fascinating especially the stereo quality.  I have read several articles on that topic and they are a hoot.Of course it is the psychology and it subsequent affects that keep the play of courtesan and patron most interesting along with a sprinkling of the uncertainty principle. --JP

Greywolf,First no need to apologize to me for a length of a post!  lol.  As a virtue goes will I am still working on it myself.  But whatever vice you attribute to yourself for discursiveness I am certain it is made up for in your eloquence.  Your statement on what makes up chemistry or my preferred term “magic” cannot be said better.As to the science, or the lack there of, of man and women well, you are correct and nowhere did I mean to imply that math, statistics, heck chemistry again my term would be “magic” as chemistry implies things that just don’t show here or could ever explain the twixts and tweens of the sexes.  And I would be so bold as to say I do not want a mathematic or physic for that “magic” or even the lesser sleight of hands  of sex. My intent was to express in a cheeky way that we should not be too quick to dismiss money for the discussion.  And to explore why dollars can impact a performance score of a courtesan.  Notice I said score as that is a subjective result as we often say YMMV well in this case YRMD = your reality may differ.Also I realize that I mis-wrote in what I was saying about price and appearance, there is a significant impact that would impact performance scores.  And I was just stating that the inverse would be true and just have I have not found it.  Popperian approach to the problem.Finally, I cannot agree with you more (and hope I did not imply) as to the any guarantees in this dance we are in.  Actually the only guarantee is that there are no guarantees!--JP--modified by JP at Thu, May 17, 2001, 18:57:35--modified by JP at Fri, May 18, 2001, 10:50:50

JPL that!  We never would have gotten to deep space. LOL.

on a provider I want her to have that clean pussy smell.Of course if she has a great set of w00fers that helps too!LM

Mathesar,Eventually even those will come down somewhere at sometime. Damn those laws of thermodynamics and that Big Crunch.--JP--modified by JP at Fri, May 18, 2001, 08:23:01--modified by JP at Fri, May 18, 2001, 10:51:35

x

G2,I hope you didn't get the impression I was upset about the "old pro" remark...I was just having a little fun with you about it, that's all.As to the suggestion for a change in my handle...yours seems a bit long. Maybe "premature greywolf?"  Nah...that could really really have a negative connotation. (LOL) Maybe I'll just leave it as it is--not that far from reality.

But LM does the nice "interior" smell change how big you think her woofers are?  Or I guess vice a versa.That is the questions?  Lol.--JP

big on breasts....or vice versa!LM

JP,I suppose one way to answer would be to say that while perception may be reality to one, others may have a different perception & therefore a different reality.  Thus, truth & reality are not, at least in that instance, synonymous.  Isn't the English language a bit unique in that the same thing can be said in so many different ways, & at the same time be so ptoentially confusing due to the lack of true clarity.  Ahhh, if all words had but one definition.....But I've strayed from the real question.  If "perception" required absolute accuracy, the mark has been missed.  If, however, it was a case of close counting, as in horseshoes & hand grenades, then the target has been hit.What the hell kind of answer was that anyway?  I must have heard too many politicians speak lately. LOL

(even counting dark matter) to stop the expansion and that the astrophysicists aren't expecting a "Big Crunch."  In fact, isn't the latest theory that the expansion is accelerating?I don't think that there ever will be a "Restaurant at the End of the Universe."  Incidentally, Douglas Adams died a week or so ago at the age of 49.

As to the the Dark Matter issue there are several competing camps but for humor sake I also used the reference for ending from the proton decay work.  But more in private e-mail for details.As to Douglas Adams, a loss for us all.  Humor is something that certainly seems to be violating the 1st law as it seems to be diminishing with no replacement.You are correct we have lost our “Restaurant at the end…” but given the trends in eating establishment it would not have been a restaurant anyway either a " a chic intimate little bistro featuring"... or a sushi bar or a drive through serving fries.Oh well.--JP

has nothing to do with a blind date's face.  Dark matter aside, they actually think that there is a property of the void itself that is accelerating the rate of the expansion.  Even stranger, "they" (you know who you are) think there is enough energy in the void to power a warp type propulsion drive.  I'm deliberately stopping here w/o further elaboration.  We don't want to end up on the secret provider site with "Nerd" next to our names, do we??

EOM

"It's not the Earth the meek shall inherit, it's the dirt."I suspect a similar fate awaits nerds now that the .com bubble has burst.Actually, I've known some very sexy women who like intelligent men (e.g., LL), but G2 is right, I really don't want to end up on the secret provider site with "Nerd" next to my name (although if JP and G2 are there I might consider it a compliment to be included as part of the complement).--modified by Mathesar at Wed, May 23, 2001, 03:50:37

Yep, my comment had little to do with the changes in the .com situation and more to do with the notion that brains are sexy...Frankly, I love it when you all talk "intelligent". Might as well be talking "dirty"! Doesnt matter wether I fully understand it, or just grasp it,or dont understand it at all, just sounds good! Hmmm, now I suppose that means that if someone decided to be inventive and make a rash of **it up that if it sounded plausible enough to me, I would find it sexy. LOL!Have a freind who went to a Mensa gathering once and he was not Mensa level. Made stuff up to talk about. They ate it up! He must have been at least clever, as some of his ideas seemed plausible to them.

I posted a reply to Mathesars comment about the "meek inheriting the earth", however; it posted as part of his post, above. Please read my comments. Mathesar knows I admire his brains! Although his math ability is quite intimidating to me and leaves me somewhat envious...In my next life I should like to come back as a statictician (sp) especially if it means I could pursue the use Mathesar has found for it! LOL! Wait, not sure I want to come back as a guy though...I rather like my female status. Not interested in changing that any time in the future. LOL! Well, I could come back and review you guys! I'd be a very fair judge of all of you. Ratings would be based mainly on performance and brains, kindness, charm! Value would be dictated by how satisfactorily you displayed those qualities.

I like the formula that mathesar created.  I think it is accurate.  It rates the mean appearance and performace levels with cost and it shows you how much you should be paying for that experience.  Try it,  it works!

So the nerds will inherit or at least the second generation of them will. JP--modified by JP at Fri, May 25, 2001, 16:43:55