I was debating on sharing but w ouch is enough. I inquired about Lora her last week here and was told MSOG was an extra 40. I’ve posted here before about their upcharging bullshit so I decided to ask a few mongers if they experienced the same. NOPE! Standard rate included MSOG. Part of this was on me for inquiring but do these boomers think we are that dumb? I decided not to move forward with the session (second mistake) and decided to see Bunny which was my third mistake. Lesson learned and won’t engage in session discussion with a booker other than to set up things up.  

Happy Hobbying,  
FM

regarding the "engage in discussion" with the booker about what happens during the session *before* any session occurs.

 
If they don't have that listed on the site as a standard policy for all their girls or that as an additional aspect for seeing a specific provider you won't know. If you're just getting some additional info from the booker about a session aspect that is not listed on the site then no discussion is really needed. Just accept that is the case and pay or let them know you're interested in someone else.  

 
I suppose one can grip a bit about the additional fees that seem to be coming in, as occurs with the increased base rate we've seen. But I think a booker that provides someone with a heads up in advance is doing a positive thing for customers and not screwing them over. Even when we get bad news I think we should be happy to know in advance so we can then make an informed decision.

 
As something of an aside on the MSON fee, I have notice that that is becoming a standard for Asian Agencies in Canada. Mover over, in Thailand and Malaysia the structure has been X hours = Y shots for at least 3 years,  with a premium for additional shots in a given time period. So while it might be a bit new in the States, it is not an unusual structure for Asian providers globally.

Really, we are comparing our market to Canada, Thailand and Malaysia? Did you even read my post? My “gripe” is the bullshjt about extra for what has been established as a standard of practice within the fee in our area, nor other areas. Again, I made a point to message a few others that have seen her an no discussion nor request for any thing more than standard rate was expected for what I had inquired about. Lastly, agencies don’t list what ladies offer on there websites, if anything at all for that matter.

First of all the fee for MSOG is hardly brand new even here. It's been around at some places for a while. SA is a west coast spin off and I want to say the WC guys have been mentioning the MSOG fee for almost a year now. But it was never an absolute guaranteed service as you claim. It was very common but it was ALWAYS at the discretion of the provider, as was CIM (unless the fee was paid) or BBFS.

 
The DC area has seen a number of changes. Used to be that we got a guarantee CIM with the GFE/GFE+ structure. That was just a different way of saying CIM $40 extra.  When prices started rising the agencies dropped the 260/300 pricing for GFE/GFE+ - and we lost the certainty of CIM with that change.  Then we started seeing the BBFS fees and then MSOG fees so those who really value those options can be sure they can get it with any provider offering the option and avoid a YMMV situation.  

 
And you were clearly not just talking about a new fee coming into the picture but saying it was some BS the booker was creating. The booker gets nothing of those fees so the booker is not the one requiring it. As you noted, that information is generally no longer provided on the websites so just how can a client be told that some provider is going to require a fee now for something many expect as standard fare? The booker did you, and everyone else, a favor by telling you up front so you could make an informed decision and potential drama at the location could be avoided. Your post subject as just shooting the messenger because you didn't like the message.

 
I was not comparing this area to other places but pointing out that in the area of the world these women come from approach how many shots you get a session differently. We live in a global setting. Having some view into how things work in other areas -- such as Asia given you're talking about K-Agencies and K-Girls specifically -- when looking at how things change here can help limited surprises when things do change.

-- Modified on 5/29/2023 3:05:55 PM

As a hobbyist for 15 years I can confidently say I’ve NEVER paid nor was quoted an extra fee for MSOG. BBFS I’m this are has been around maybe a year and averages an extra bill. Question to you is….why would the Booker site the sera fee for MSOG when clear it was included in her hourly based off the one on one discussion I’ve had with other hobbyists and NEVER mentioned in ANY of her reviews. Stop defending this agency Bruh and get some backbone. They need us more than we need them.

VIP4U / Happy Together started the trend circa 2015...

Msog is implied with an hour. You are of course correct. But griping over forty bucks is downright pathetic.

Hey, you engaged still didn’t you. Reason for my post was to share and make others aware of their bullshit.

MSOG fees are becoming more prevalent, especially for sessions shorter than one hour.

If you've been here 15 years then you must remember that some of the agencies, sometimes only for some of their girls, started listing MSOG on the girl's profile page on their site. Why? If what you claim is true that everyone always allowed MSOG for an hour session (or any length session for that matter) then list that makes absolutely sense. No, the reason they started doing that was because MSOG was YMMV and resulted in both confusion and arguments. IIRC, about the same time that was happening there were the periodic threads started on these boards about MSOG and not getting it.

 
So your premise that somehow MSOG was always on the table is mistaken. It was very common but not a guaranteed service level for the entrance price. So including that on the agency listing was good marketing -- and based on Kyungjean's comment also something some of the agencies thought they could monetize. Just more widely spread than now.

 
As for you claim that the reviews somehow prove anything about the situation, no, they don't. Confirmation bias much?

 
As for a backbone, mine is fine. You might want to find yours if for some reason you're not able to tell the agency you were not happy with how it operates and therefore will take your money elsewhere. As I said originally, you got good information that allowed you to make an informed choice. That is not defending anyone but noting how things are.