aiseeya

This is my common practice also (as a client). Easier and higher chance of a well coordinated smooth multi-providers session. Though I would typically tip the originator provider for the helping with logistic.
IMO my regulars prefer this approach as this allow them certain degree of control in managing the session be it to ensure client satisfaction, less awkwardness between providers (as would be expected if the providers never work in tandem prior) or just to offer an 'above and beyond client service' - all of which are very much appreciated from my end.

If you have to ask….

If I were in your shoes I'd bring this up during the initial texts with a provider. I'd simply say "I love providing oral but I have full mouth dentures which I usually prefer to remove when giving oral. Would you be ok with that during our encounter?" You never want to spring anything at all on a provider when he is already there and the session has begun. It just makes the whole session a lot more enjoyable and relaxing knowing you have everything squared away beforehand. And if the provider is not ok with that or would make them uncomfortable best to know beforehand and not remove your dentures or move on to another provider.

I would normally do a reasonably thorough research before hiring save for this one time where I was so horny and decided to hire ignoring red flags. Session concluded shorter than 30mins, action itself was probably 10mins or so, I did not finish and he never offer to assist. Never again. Always always do research.

I would normally do a reasonably thorough research before hiring save for this one time where I was so horny and decided to hire ignoring red flags. Session concluded shorter than 30mins, action itself was probably 10mins or so, I did not finish and he never offer to assist. Never again. Always always do research.

I would normally do a reasonably thorough research before hiring save for this one time where I was so horny and decided to hire ignoring red flags. Session concluded shorter than 30mins, action itself was probably 10mins or so, I did not finish and he never offer to assist. Never again. Always always do research.

At any $$$ rate, he could make good money in NYC.
Too bad he self describes as straight in his RM profile.  Does men, women and couples.  His pvt pics on RM show him performing oral on a shaved p^^^y and eating sushi off a girl's derriere.
Generally speaking, that turns me OFF.  I am willing to compromise but this is a 
NO

This highlights a big difference between an escort I'd hire only once and someone whom I would hire repeatedly:  If a guy gets ready to leave as soon as "the main action" finishes, even if it's only half-way into the hour, then I would never hire him again even though I obviously enjoyed the first half.  A potential regular is going to understand that just being "company" is part of the job and will be able to converse, cuddle or whatever.  I certainly never expect a "round two" within an hour appointment and, at my age, I couldn't even have a second round in an hour, but it is nice just to touch someone with no expectation of it developing into sex.

This is my common practice also (as a client). Easier and higher chance of a well coordinated smooth multi-providers session. Though I would typically tip the originator provider for the helping with logistic.
IMO my regulars prefer this approach as this allow them certain degree of control in managing the session be it to ensure client satisfaction, less awkwardness between providers (as would be expected if the providers never work in tandem prior) or just to offer an 'above and beyond client service' - all of which are very much appreciated from my end.

I cant imagine how someone could BE an escort if a "decent-looking" 66 year old man would turn him off 🤔. I'm sure most escorts are constantly dealing with far worse. 

I'm a fucker not a shopper, this idea of shopping during an overnight or multi-day experience, actually part of the fun and the compensation, is strange to me:  Apart from dinner or a show all I wanted was to spend the time wrapped up tight in the client.

These are perks that Sugar Babies expect of Sugar Daddies. I am neither but wonder whether something was inadvertently conveyed in your offers that lead to the confusion. In any event, they sound quite entitled. 

He aint wrong though in principle. Whilst not all clients are 'old fat man', his point highlights the core nature of this business. No money no honey. 

He aint wrong though in principle. Whilst not all clients are 'old fat man', his point highlights the core nature of this business. No money no honey. 

I agree, that the illusion should be professionally maintained within the confines of a session. But if you're busy stalking an escort's personal life and you're sad to discover he doesn't actually crave the company of old, fat men, thats on you. NOT his fault.

What breaks that illusion is the client's inability to separate his fantasies from reality. 
Under no circumstances have I ever fucked a five-star escort  had him cum buckets and tell me I'm a "hot daddy"..then left that encounter actually believing he thought I was such a hot fuck that he was really into me and wouldn't have wanted to be paid if we had only just met on Grindr, instead. 
The reality check is on YOU, the client, not the provider. 
I am well aware that five-star-fucks are seeking other five-star-fucks in their spare time.

Yea I believe he is straight. We cuddle - but he doesnt rim and give oral. 

Just so I understand correctly, your suggestion is to invest more in that provider whenever he fails to meet customer's original expectation notwithstanding he has received compensation for that very original expectation. So in short: pay for original quote; then pay more if provider fails to perform and anyhow tips if provider exceeds expectation. BUT all that said, its not at all about money just a way to spoil provider without expecting any return. So is it charity or investment?

Dozens.

Literally, 236.

Which are you considering?  We're not mindreaders.

Just so I understand correctly, your suggestion is to invest more in that provider whenever he fails to meet customer's original expectation notwithstanding he has received compensation for that very original expectation. So in short: pay for original quote; then pay more if provider fails to perform and anyhow tips if provider exceeds expectation. BUT all that said, its not at all about money just a way to spoil provider without expecting any return. So is it charity or investment?

If you dont ask, the answer's always no 🤷‍♂️

Just so I understand correctly, your suggestion is to invest more in that provider whenever he fails to meet customer's original expectation notwithstanding he has received compensation for that very original expectation. So in short: pay for original quote; then pay more if provider fails to perform and anyhow tips if provider exceeds expectation. BUT all that said, its not at all about money just a way to spoil provider without expecting any return. So is it charity or investment?

Just so I understand correctly, your suggestion is to invest more in that provider whenever he fails to meet customer's original expectation notwithstanding he has received compensation for that very original expectation. So in short: pay for original quote; then pay more if provider fails to perform and anyhow tips if provider exceeds expectation. BUT all that said, its not at all about money just a way to spoil provider without expecting any return. So is it charity or investment?

Just so I understand correctly, your suggestion is to invest more in that provider whenever he fails to meet customer's original expectation notwithstanding he has received compensation for that very original expectation. So in short: pay for original quote; then pay more if provider fails to perform and anyhow tips if provider exceeds expectation. BUT all that said, its not at all about money just a way to spoil provider without expecting any return. So is it charity or investment?

But if the only sex life you have other than your hand is hiring, that becomes a primary need.