ApexNomad

That’s what happens when you see it in previews. 😂 I must have been too distracted by Ricky’s bulge in the 5th row orchestra to notice the surrounding shit show.

Respectfully, I think you might be doing yourself a disservice by venting frustrations and sharing your view of prospective clients to this degree in a forum that’s largely made up of clients and potential clients. To be clear, I’m not saying your frustrations aren’t valid, nor that you shouldn’t vent. But considering the audience and platform, I’m not sure I’d go to such lengths as you have. Maybe try bouncing your frustrations off other provider friends offline or people outside the business. Conversely, if you don’t see this platform as a means to attract new clients as a byproduct of engagement, then by all means, vent away!

I thought the 2012 Broadway revival of Evita had its moments, but ultimately, it felt a bit underwhelming. Elena Roger’s portrayal of Eva Perón was definitely unique, but I found her vocal performance lacking the powerhouse presence I was expecting. She captured Eva’s ambition and fiery spirit, but some of the iconic numbers didn’t have the punch I was hoping for. Her voice, while distinctive, just didn’t always hit the mark for me. Ricky Martin, as Che, was charismatic and brought some star appeal, but I felt like his performance missed the intensity that the character demands. He had great stage presence and his vocals were fine, but Che felt more like a narrator than the rebellious, biting figure he’s meant to be. It left the show feeling a little softer, especially given the political edge Evita usually carries. I did enjoy Michael Cerveris as Juan Perón, though. His performance was one of the highlights for me—subtle and nuanced, which provided a nice contrast to the more flamboyant moments. The staging and set design were visually striking, and the choreography added some energy to the ensemble numbers. Still, I thought the production, in general, relied a little too much on spectacle rather than digging deeper into the emotional core of the story.

Interesting casting choice. I also read ALW and Lloyd are teaming up on his new original musical, “The Illusionist.”

Very open! For some providers, this is a side gig, so an early morning appointment could be ideal for them too, before their regular job. Never assume a provider’s availability or willingness to accommodate—the worst they can say is no. Always ask!

He’s gorgeous!! I really appreciate the variety of photos—they give me a great sense of who he is in and out of bed. In gym clothes, work clothes, lying down with his head on the pillow (which is my favorite)—he’s created the perfect ad.

Very!!

Do you know if he also escorts? Thanks.

Then these must be the young providers—which is exactly why I deal with the mature ones. If I were to ask a new provider - in text no less - what his favorite dirty words were, and he didn’t block me right then and there, then he deserves to have his time wasted.

How much juicy information are providers texting to potential clients that would result in them masturbating? And to not shut it down? Not saying it doesn’t happen, just seems odd. I can see how clients can waste a provider’s time with endless back and forth texts of scheduling, being non-committal, etc., which is unfortunate. But masturbating?

I get how frustrating it must be to deal with flaky clients and last-minute changes. Setting boundaries to protect your time and resources is totally fair, but keep in mind that adding too many conditions can sometimes turn new clients away. Do you have regulars? Along with staying open to new clients, consider leveraging those regulars by making sure they get first-class treatment. Offering little enticements that feel good for you to make, but can big impact. I’m not necessarily talking discounts, but little gestures like staying a bit past the agreed time or a follow-up text to say thanks. They’re the ones who come back over and over because they genuinely enjoy the full experience with you and how you make them feel. A balance of solid policies and focus on your loyal clients could help make things more predictable and rewarding. Good luck—sounds like you’ve been through a lot on the road!

This sums it up for me!! From Adventures in Babysitting: Brenda: Uh, those are hot dogs, right? Hot Dog Vendor: Yeah, want one? Brenda: Mmm, yeah I'd love one. Hot Dog Vendor: That'll be two bucks. Hot Dog Vendor: [Brenda hands him a check, he stares incredulously] A check? Brenda: Yeah, but it's a good check. See, Chris' mom wrote it to Chris 'cause Chris bought her something, I can't remember what. Then I bought Chris some press-on nails, I gave Chris the difference, and she wrote the check over to me. So I'll write the check over to you, you keep the difference, and I'll take the hot dog. So, you got a pen? Hot Dog Vendor: Get outta here! Brenda: Wait! I'm starving, you'd rather throw it away than give it to me? Hot Dog Vendor: I work on a cash-only basis. Brenda: But it's a perfectly good check! Hot Dog Vendor: No! I'll make it very clear. You slip me the cash, and I'll slip you the weiner. Brenda: But I don't have any cash! Hot Dog Vendor: Then I don't have a weiner!

If we’re talking providers, I have so many happy memories and beautiful moments. One that really stands out? I remember walking him to the door, tucking the white envelope into his back pocket, giving his ass a gentle squeeze, and thanking him so much for his time. The hug lingered longer than usual. I closed the door, but maybe ten seconds later, there was a knock. I glanced around the room, wondering if he’d left something behind. Had I accidentally short-changed him? When I opened the door, he looked at me and said, “I forgot something.” Before I could respond, he stepped back in, grabbed my face, and kissed me!

1. The Cancer Fund of America (2015): 99% of the donations collected were spent on “fundraising expenses” and executive salaries, leaving a tiny fraction for actual charitable programs. Verdict: shut down. 2. The Children’s Cancer Fund (2016): 99% for “fundraising activities” and lavish salaries for its staff. Much like the Cancer Fund of America, very little of the donations were spent on direct assistance for children with cancer. Verdict: shut down. 3. The United States Fire Victims Fund (2017): This fund, which was supposed to help victims of fires, particularly in California, came under scrutiny when investigations showed that 99% of the donations went to “fundraisers” and staff salaries, leaving almost no money for victims. Verdict: shut down. Etc. As of now, that we know of, there are no widely publicized cases of major nonprofit organizations where 99% of donations go to executive salaries or administrative costs. However, there are still many small or less-known organizations that may engage in questionable practices, though they typically don’t attract the same level of attention unless they are caught in major investigations.

Basically, you argue that the rise in markups and market power is not linked to excessive market concentration or anti-competitive behavior, and that factors such as firms’ expectations of future costs explain the increase in prices, while questioning the effectiveness of antitrust interventions and price controls. Multiple, respected studies, including those by De Loecker, Eeckhout, and Unger (2020), as well as Philippon (2019), show strong correlations between rising markups and increasing market concentration. These studies cover a wide range of industries, particularly sectors like pharma and tech, where market concentration has led directly to higher markups. The evidence suggests that, rather than being driven by future cost expectations, these price increases reflect the diminished competition and market power of dominant firms. Cowen has critiqued De Loecker’s approach, particularly in how profit and markup definitions can be complicated by industries with high fixed costs and economies of scale. However, the core insight of De Loecker’s study—the dramatic increase in the average “pure profit” rate since 1980—remains a valuable contribution to understanding market dynamics. De Loecker’s study shows that the overall trend of rising markups, even after adjusting for fixed costs, highlights a shift in market power toward larger firms, particularly in industries with less competition. This has been corroborated by other influential economists, such as Philippon, who also links rising markups with increased market concentration and lower levels of competition. Furthermore, while criticisms of the methodology are common in economic studies, the consistent findings across multiple independent studies, including those supported by the IMF, suggest that this rise in markups reflects more than just industry-specific quirks. It indicates a broader structural shift where dominant firms are able to exert more market power, not just profit from economies of scale, but also from reduced competition and barriers to entry. To dismiss these findings entirely would be to overlook how the data fits within a larger context of increasing market concentration across various sectors. To claim that history cannot demonstrate the positive outcomes of antitrust measures because fairness is politically disputed is simply incorrect. Antitrust actions—like the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911—resulted in increased competition, lower prices, and a more balanced market. These are not hypothetical outcomes; they are well-documented historical facts. The institutional context in which antitrust bureaucrats operate may be imperfect, but that does not negate the fact that antitrust measures have historically restored fair competition and benefited consumers. Furthermore, price controls, when applied strategically in sectors like healthcare or utilities, have proven effective in protecting consumers from monopolistic pricing. Fairness disputes should not overshadow the tangible benefits of these measures. If we dismissed all interventions simply because fairness is disputed, we would be ignoring the clear lessons of history on how to maintain competitive, just economic environments.

I completely understand how you feel. I also never book less than two hours, and I want it to feel like more than just a transaction. It’s totally natural to hope for an experience that feels a bit more genuine and connected. Not sure what city you’re in or if you’re into tops, bottoms, or vers, but I’d be happy to recommend someone if that helps. The best providers won’t make it feel like a transaction and the best ones will listen - really listen - if you’re nervous. (And they will know too.) And don’t worry too much about the nerves—that’s normal and often gets easier with the right person. (I still get nervous with my first encounters, too.)