Tajoki

I have taken to having an escort do 3 days for 1500.  I am usually having an encounter upon arrival, later that evening and before bed.  The next day morning, afternoon and night and then morning and perhaps before leaving.  I have an active libido, so I am not struggling to do this.  That makes 7 encounters for 1500 or just about 200 per encounter.  Now I usually take them out to dinner and lunch and make breakfast at home and sometimes I pay for a day pass to the gym for them when I have a training session.  So I get three full days of company and a lot of sex, for a man of my age.  They get a guarantee of money, no hotel fee and use of my pool and several meals and a day at the gym.  In truth, I enjoy the not fucking part as much if not more than the sex though I thoroughly enjoy the sex.  A three day, usually midweek encounter once or twice a month keeps me satisfied enough that I am not usually looking to hire otherwise and if the urge hits, I hit up the apps for a NSA encounter.  
Now the finances of this or the personal situation I have may not work for everyone, but it works for me.  In addition, every once and again, the escort and I will go out and manage to pick up a third guy that is hot enough for the escort to do for free and for me to have included in the threeway.   
Think out of the box rather than moan about expenses that are only getting higher for  we hobbyists.  

While there is no doubt that there is a difference between ‘cost’ and ‘value’ - I have found that in most cases when cost increases, value decreases; there is no increase in quality.  In other words, just because you pay more, does not necessarily mean that you get more or even the same. Which is why I like having regulars - the cost vs value has been established and I can adjust where needed.

Met him recently. DM for more details. 

I’ve enjoyed the services of a few porn stars present and past. I will say that they have been pretty reliable and there’s a few who I continue to hire when I have the budget and they’re in town.
as a bottom who loves dominant tops with darker complexions, Ive hired Adonis Boss and Wolf Titan Shogun multiple times and would recommend them both for clients with similar tastes. 
 
In my youth I had several high profile stars who i didn’t hire but just happened to get the opportunity to enjoy on a non-transactional level and tbh that was the best cause they wanted it and didn’t see it as work. The legendary Bobby Blake and several of the better known LFC studs were among those whose carnal pleasures I got to enjoy back when New York was fun!!!
i just wish that so many of them didn’t charge so damn much- i mean I get it you gotta get it while you can, but I just refuse to pay a small fortune when I could get two or three lower tier providers for the same price or less. The ones I still hire have gotten to know me and are happy to give me a reasonable rate since they know im a great client and also a great lay (or so they say lol)

Interesting topic.
I don’t think this is about whether providers are “allowed” to have preferences — of course they are. That part feels obvious.
What this situation highlights for me is something a bit deeper about how these bookings actually work.
When people hire, they’re not just paying for the physical act. Part of the value is the feeling of being wanted, or at least not being actively outside of someone’s type. It’s understood that it’s transactional, but there’s still a layer of perceived desire that makes the experience land differently.
Seeing a personal profile that’s very blunt or exclusionary doesn’t offend me — but it does change the framing. It introduces a gap between how someone presents professionally versus how they express themselves personally, and that gap can make the experience feel more transactional than immersive.
At that point, it’s not about judging him or taking it personally. It’s just a different risk profile as a client:
higher chance the vibe feels mechanical less confidence in genuine engagement harder to buy into the experience So for me, it’s less “he shouldn’t have preferences” and more “this specific signal lowers the value of the booking.”
Everyone’s threshold will be different, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to factor that into a decision and just move on.

Interesting topic.
I don’t think this is about whether providers are “allowed” to have preferences — of course they are. That part feels obvious.
What this situation highlights for me is something a bit deeper about how these bookings actually work.
When people hire, they’re not just paying for the physical act. Part of the value is the feeling of being wanted, or at least not being actively outside of someone’s type. It’s understood that it’s transactional, but there’s still a layer of perceived desire that makes the experience land differently.
Seeing a personal profile that’s very blunt or exclusionary doesn’t offend me — but it does change the framing. It introduces a gap between how someone presents professionally versus how they express themselves personally, and that gap can make the experience feel more transactional than immersive.
At that point, it’s not about judging him or taking it personally. It’s just a different risk profile as a client:
higher chance the vibe feels mechanical less confidence in genuine engagement harder to buy into the experience So for me, it’s less “he shouldn’t have preferences” and more “this specific signal lowers the value of the booking.”
Everyone’s threshold will be different, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to factor that into a decision and just move on.

Interesting topic.
I don’t think this is about whether providers are “allowed” to have preferences — of course they are. That part feels obvious.
What this situation highlights for me is something a bit deeper about how these bookings actually work.
When people hire, they’re not just paying for the physical act. Part of the value is the feeling of being wanted, or at least not being actively outside of someone’s type. It’s understood that it’s transactional, but there’s still a layer of perceived desire that makes the experience land differently.
Seeing a personal profile that’s very blunt or exclusionary doesn’t offend me — but it does change the framing. It introduces a gap between how someone presents professionally versus how they express themselves personally, and that gap can make the experience feel more transactional than immersive.
At that point, it’s not about judging him or taking it personally. It’s just a different risk profile as a client:
higher chance the vibe feels mechanical less confidence in genuine engagement harder to buy into the experience So for me, it’s less “he shouldn’t have preferences” and more “this specific signal lowers the value of the booking.”
Everyone’s threshold will be different, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to factor that into a decision and just move on.

Interesting topic.
I don’t think this is about whether providers are “allowed” to have preferences — of course they are. That part feels obvious.
What this situation highlights for me is something a bit deeper about how these bookings actually work.
When people hire, they’re not just paying for the physical act. Part of the value is the feeling of being wanted, or at least not being actively outside of someone’s type. It’s understood that it’s transactional, but there’s still a layer of perceived desire that makes the experience land differently.
Seeing a personal profile that’s very blunt or exclusionary doesn’t offend me — but it does change the framing. It introduces a gap between how someone presents professionally versus how they express themselves personally, and that gap can make the experience feel more transactional than immersive.
At that point, it’s not about judging him or taking it personally. It’s just a different risk profile as a client:
higher chance the vibe feels mechanical less confidence in genuine engagement harder to buy into the experience So for me, it’s less “he shouldn’t have preferences” and more “this specific signal lowers the value of the booking.”
Everyone’s threshold will be different, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to factor that into a decision and just move on.

How do you handle regular providers whose effort starts slipping?
First few sessions are great, then it turns into:
going through the motions inconsistent performance Nothing terrible — just not worth the same rate anymore.
Do you:
call it out see them less or quietly phase them out Also — any way to prevent this once someone becomes a regular?

Interesting topic.
I don’t think this is about whether providers are “allowed” to have preferences — of course they are. That part feels obvious.
What this situation highlights for me is something a bit deeper about how these bookings actually work.
When people hire, they’re not just paying for the physical act. Part of the value is the feeling of being wanted, or at least not being actively outside of someone’s type. It’s understood that it’s transactional, but there’s still a layer of perceived desire that makes the experience land differently.
Seeing a personal profile that’s very blunt or exclusionary doesn’t offend me — but it does change the framing. It introduces a gap between how someone presents professionally versus how they express themselves personally, and that gap can make the experience feel more transactional than immersive.
At that point, it’s not about judging him or taking it personally. It’s just a different risk profile as a client:
higher chance the vibe feels mechanical less confidence in genuine engagement harder to buy into the experience So for me, it’s less “he shouldn’t have preferences” and more “this specific signal lowers the value of the booking.”
Everyone’s threshold will be different, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to factor that into a decision and just move on.

Interesting topic.
I don’t think this is about whether providers are “allowed” to have preferences — of course they are. That part feels obvious.
What this situation highlights for me is something a bit deeper about how these bookings actually work.
When people hire, they’re not just paying for the physical act. Part of the value is the feeling of being wanted, or at least not being actively outside of someone’s type. It’s understood that it’s transactional, but there’s still a layer of perceived desire that makes the experience land differently.
Seeing a personal profile that’s very blunt or exclusionary doesn’t offend me — but it does change the framing. It introduces a gap between how someone presents professionally versus how they express themselves personally, and that gap can make the experience feel more transactional than immersive.
At that point, it’s not about judging him or taking it personally. It’s just a different risk profile as a client:
higher chance the vibe feels mechanical less confidence in genuine engagement harder to buy into the experience So for me, it’s less “he shouldn’t have preferences” and more “this specific signal lowers the value of the booking.”
Everyone’s threshold will be different, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to factor that into a decision and just move on.

Interesting topic.
I don’t think this is about whether providers are “allowed” to have preferences — of course they are. That part feels obvious.
What this situation highlights for me is something a bit deeper about how these bookings actually work.
When people hire, they’re not just paying for the physical act. Part of the value is the feeling of being wanted, or at least not being actively outside of someone’s type. It’s understood that it’s transactional, but there’s still a layer of perceived desire that makes the experience land differently.
Seeing a personal profile that’s very blunt or exclusionary doesn’t offend me — but it does change the framing. It introduces a gap between how someone presents professionally versus how they express themselves personally, and that gap can make the experience feel more transactional than immersive.
At that point, it’s not about judging him or taking it personally. It’s just a different risk profile as a client:
higher chance the vibe feels mechanical less confidence in genuine engagement harder to buy into the experience So for me, it’s less “he shouldn’t have preferences” and more “this specific signal lowers the value of the booking.”
Everyone’s threshold will be different, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to factor that into a decision and just move on.

Interesting topic.
I don’t think this is about whether providers are “allowed” to have preferences — of course they are. That part feels obvious.
What this situation highlights for me is something a bit deeper about how these bookings actually work.
When people hire, they’re not just paying for the physical act. Part of the value is the feeling of being wanted, or at least not being actively outside of someone’s type. It’s understood that it’s transactional, but there’s still a layer of perceived desire that makes the experience land differently.
Seeing a personal profile that’s very blunt or exclusionary doesn’t offend me — but it does change the framing. It introduces a gap between how someone presents professionally versus how they express themselves personally, and that gap can make the experience feel more transactional than immersive.
At that point, it’s not about judging him or taking it personally. It’s just a different risk profile as a client:
higher chance the vibe feels mechanical less confidence in genuine engagement harder to buy into the experience So for me, it’s less “he shouldn’t have preferences” and more “this specific signal lowers the value of the booking.”
Everyone’s threshold will be different, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to factor that into a decision and just move on.

I get what you’re saying, I just don’t agree with the premise. Not everything that sticks in someone’s mind long enough to post about has to come from ego or hurt feelings. 
Sometimes people just find something interesting, nuanced, or worth discussing and want to hear other perspectives. 
To me, this isn’t just a binary “would you hire or not,” it’s about the disconnect between how someone presents professionally versus personally, and how that affects perception and the overall experience. That’s a more layered question than just “yeah I wouldn’t have either.”
Making ONE post about it doesn’t strike me as rumination or hurt feelings or bruised ego. It reads to me like someone who noticed something, made a decision, and was curious how others interpret the same situation.

Funny enough — I had a provider tell me BB usually comes at a higher rate.
His reasoning was just “better experience,” but it also felt like something he could leverage to charge more.
I remember laughing and going,
“okay… but you’re enjoying it more too, right?”
Because it never really feels like a one-sided upgrade.

Can we pretend you and I are on Grindr and you can offer me the discounted rate?  😉 

1. The reason why we want to text outside the Grindr platform because Grindr bans accounts that talk about transaction and money.  

2. I actually had a very good experience with Grindr. Over the summer of 2025, I remembered I was averaging around 20ish clients per month from July-September just from Grindr alone. It is harder to get clients on RM if you stayed in a city for over a year, because you are no longer the new face. On Grindr, you will ALWAYS be a NEW FACE when you move around to different areas since profiles are distance-based.
 
3. In my experience, RM heavily relies on clients with Asian fetish. Grindr clients are picky and very into looks; they are very discriminatory toward Asians, so being a muscle Asian helps out alot. Relying on Asian fetish wont get me far on Grindr. So you need to make sure your body is as muscular as possible and hit the GYM. 

4. Any Asian guy can get clients on RM, but on Grindr it is an uphill battle especially if are not muscular/attractive. 
 
5. I would say I get more clients from Grindr when RM starts to slow. On RM I go more expensive because all of the guys using the platform are 100% clients and they will pay your asking rate. On Grindr, I go cheaper because you are targeting normal people who have never used escorts before. Plus, you cannot go too expensive on younger clients.
6. On Grindr, go cheaper on young or hot/attractive guys. More expensive on older.

7. In my case, my clients from Grindr are mostly young guys in 20-30s. I dont often get older clients on Grindr. Most of the attractive clients I ever encountered were all from Grindr. And yes, believe me hot guys do actually pay for these services. On RM, there are more older.
8. Just two days ago I went to Queens, NY to visit my friend and I got a cute Colombian client right away from Grindr on my first day there. I paid my buddy a fee to host at his house 🤣. My Latin buddy was stunned that I was able to get client on Grindr that easily. He would not have believed me had he not seen it in person. Grindr is life!

for me, without a name attached to it, the complaint means nothing.  I had an issue with a provider (non-deposit related) and when I posted here about it, the provider was suddenly very quick to want to resolve it. I would imagine you will have similar reaction, so I encourage you to do so. 
 
side note - I have followed this simple common sense rules -  SMALL deposit ($50 max and/or uber covered) to well reviewed provider both here and rentmen, and never to a provider who lists or indulges in PNP.  Any and all horror stories I hear on these forums people have deviated from these common sense rules. 
 

To me deposits themselves aren’t really the issue here. It really comes down to booking risk.

As clients, we worry about being scammed or ghosted after sending money. On the other side, providers worry about driving across town, booking hotels, or blocking out time only for the client to disappear. In a way both sides are just trying to shift the risk to the other side.

From a client perspective, the more useful question isn’t really “deposit or no deposit,” but who you’re sending it to and why. A new provider with no reviews? Probably no deposit. Someone well reviewed, or a longer booking or travel involved? A small deposit can make sense.

For me it’s less about hard rules and more about risk management. Every booking ends up being its own decision.

You are truly the expert on the subject! If anyone hasn’t already subscribed to your guide, they need to!🔥

Whether he’s “worth it” really depends on what your body responds to - happy to share how it actually felt for me if that helps.

Funny enough — I had a provider tell me BB usually comes at a higher rate.
His reasoning was just “better experience,” but it also felt like something he could leverage to charge more.
I remember laughing and going,
“okay… but you’re enjoying it more too, right?”
Because it never really feels like a one-sided upgrade.

Whether he’s “worth it” really depends on what your body responds to - happy to share how it actually felt for me if that helps.

It’s not uncommon in my experience for providers to charge more for special requests and if they don’t normally do BB they charge more if they’re willing to make an exception.

Whether those photos are real, stolen, or AI, that is one of the most beautiful specimens of manhood that Bozo has seen in a very long time.
With that in mind, 5 name changes is a definite red flag and never a good sign. That's even more times than Sean Combs aka Puff Daddy aka P. Diddy aka Diddy.
BTC
🤡