Discount for in shape, good-looking and younger clients?

[marylander1940]

On 3/29/2024 at 5:16 PM, Lohengrin1979 said:

Fascinating topic and not surprised at all that Pubic and Marylander have used it to mention weight and physical fitness. They just can’t resist. 
 

While not quite in the classification of “prize hog” that Pubic loves to focus on, I do carry extra weight and the flush of my 20’s and 30’s are past. I have received discounts, however, both upfront and after many sessions, because I’m often deemed as “sweet, kind, and funny.” I do not tip overly generously, either.

I agree with some commenters above that we too often on this board take our experiences and paint them with broad strokes across the “community,” be that the LGBTQ community or the hiring one. Pubic has an asshole and an opinion. Sometimes his views are useful, sometimes they aren’t. Same goes for all of us on here. Now if you’ll all excuse me, I have to register for some state fairs down South. According to Pubic, I could earn some prize money and hiring has become expensive!

Welcome to the forum please use the @ as in @marylander1940 and @pubic_assistance to mention us so we're aware of it. 

Many of us get discounts from regulars. 

[+ KensingtonHomo]

On 3/29/2024 at 9:37 PM, marylander1940 said:

That's usually the case but handsome clients happen once or twice per year according to what my escort friends tell me.

Handsome = someone they'll fuck for fee and date. 

Given just the people, I know who hire; I find it hard to believe that most escorts only see a handsome client once or twice a year. 

[MikeBiDude]

3 hours ago, marylander1940 said:

Welcome to the forum

@Lohengrin1979 had been a member over 13 years.

[mike carey]

12 minutes ago, MikeBiDude said:

@Lohengrin1979 had been a member over 13 years.

And as such, he is no doubt aware that there is no forum requirement to @ someone when you talk about them. And no, it is not a 'common courtesy' to do so. Rather it is rude to demand that people do so.

[Rod Hagen]

Mike Carey, Marylander said Please.  Please is a request, not a demand.  

[marylander1940]

2 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

Given just the people, I know who hire; I find it hard to believe that most escorts only see a handsome client once or twice a year. 

Handsome is a high standard! In shape not so much specially in the gay community!

[pubic_assistance]

1 hour ago, mike carey said:

And no, it is not a 'common courtesy' to do so. Rather it is rude to demand that people do so.

Sorry @mike carey I disagree. 

It's a common courtesy to not talk behind people's back. 

And @marylander1940 wasn't demanding 

[marylander1940]

1 hour ago, mike carey said:

And as such, he is no doubt aware that there is no forum requirement to @ someone when you talk about them. And no, it is not a 'common courtesy' to do so. Rather it is rude to demand that people do so.

It's impolite 

13 minutes ago, Rod Hagen said:

Mike Carey, Marylander said Please.  Please is a request, not a demand.  

Exactly!

 

[+ KensingtonHomo]

8 minutes ago, marylander1940 said:

Handsome is a high standard! In shape not so much specially in the gay community!

I'm honestly curious about where and with whom you interact. Most of my friends are conventionally handsome across a range of ages. My sense is you have an extremely narrow definition of handsome like @pubic_assistance has of being "in shape." 

I encourage you to read about how those standards get developed and normalized because it's not natural. It's advertising and media. 

[Lohengrin1979]

2 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Sorry @mike carey I disagree. 

It's a common courtesy to not talk behind people's back. 

And @marylander1940 wasn't demanding 

My, my, @pubic_assistance, how does not tagging you suddenly equate to talking behind your back? You’ve pontificated quite enough in this thread for me to safely assume you’re following it, on some level. Add to that the fact that the thread was started by @marylander1940, I figured tagging was unnecessary. I’ll make sure to adhere closely to your standard of conduct going forward so as not to appear sinister.

Like I said, sometimes your opinions are useful, other times they’re not. The one above was not useful or accurate. Oh well. 
 

[pubic_assistance]

53 minutes ago, Lohengrin1979 said:

My, my, @pubic_assistance, how does not tagging you suddenly equate to talking behind your back?

I meant as a general rule.

But I suppose this could be a cultural norm for certain people and not others.

I was merely defending @marylander1940 's opinion. Nothing more.

 

[marylander1940]

1 hour ago, Lohengrin1979 said:

My, my, @pubic_assistance, how does not tagging you suddenly equate to talking behind your back? You’ve pontificated quite enough in this thread for me to safely assume you’re following it, on some level. Add to that the fact that the thread was started by @marylander1940, I figured tagging was unnecessary. I’ll make sure to adhere closely to your standard of conduct going forward so as not to appear sinister.

Like I said, sometimes your opinions are useful, other times they’re not. The one above was not useful or accurate. Oh well. 
 

It's a matter of simple courtesy. 

[marylander1940]

3 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

I'm honestly curious about where and with whom you interact. Most of my friends are conventionally handsome across a range of ages. My sense is you have an extremely narrow definition of handsome like @pubic_assistance has of being "in shape." 

I encourage you to read about how those standards get developed and normalized because it's not natural. It's advertising and media. 

I agree with you about what I perceive as handsome.

We know what in shape means and I agree with @pubic_assistance's concept.

[+ KensingtonHomo]

1 hour ago, marylander1940 said:

I agree with you about what I perceive as handsome.

We know what in shape means and I agree with @pubic_assistance's concept.

So you realize that both you and @pubic_assistance have unreasonable and unrealistic standards for beauty and fitness? Perhaps you should then keep those opinions to yourself as they’re not widely shared, nor kind, nor useful to most people on the forum. 

[MikeBiDude]

5 hours ago, marylander1940 said:

It's impolite 

Disagree, not impolite and not a common courtesy either. Helpful maybe. You had no problems replying to the messages you were mentioned but not tagged in. You caught ‘em.

[marylander1940]

6 minutes ago, KensingtonHomo said:

So you realize that both you and @pubic_assistance have unreasonable and unrealistic standards for beauty and fitness? Perhaps you should then keep those opinions to yourself as they’re not widely shared, nor kind, nor useful to most people on the forum. 

Can you please point my unrealistic standards of beauty and fitness?

Your statement is not very tolerant or democratic. 

[marylander1940]

Just now, MikeBiDude said:

Disagree, not impolite and not a common courtesy either. Helpful maybe. You had no problems replying to the messages you were mentioned but not tagged in. You caught ‘em.

Let's agree on "helpful" then. 

Can we please move and go back to subject instead of coming back to this issue @MikeBiDude ?

[+ KensingtonHomo]

1 hour ago, marylander1940 said:

Can you please point my unrealistic standards of beauty and fitness?

Your statement is not very tolerant or democratic. 

You said being handsome is “rare,” which if we generous let’s say it’s 10 percent. You only find 1 in 10 men attractive. That’s very unrealistic, as well as “intolerant and undemocratic.” And PA’s obsessed with youth and body composition that is probably achievable by 5-10% of the population. And that’s with steroids, HGH, filler, etc. 

Yet you’re both older and not in the shape of what you desire. Rather than question the way advertising and Hollywood has reduced beauty to a commodity you’re determined to naturalize it. Personally I feel more attractive now and I enjoy sex more with a wider variety of men than I did in my 20s. 

I feel almost sorry for men who are trapped in such a limited view of attractiveness and desire. 

[marylander1940]

12 minutes ago, KensingtonHomo said:

You said being handsome is “rare,” which if we generous let’s say it’s 10 percent. You only find 1 in 10 men attractive. That’s very unrealistic, as well as “intolerant and undemocratic.” And PA’s obsessed with youth and body composition that is probably achievable by 5-10% of the population. And that’s with steroids, HGH, filler, etc. 

Yet you’re both older and not in the shape of what you desire. Rather than question the way advertising and Hollywood has reduced beauty to a commodity you’re determined to naturalize it. Personally I feel more attractive now and I enjoy sex more with a wider variety of men than I did in my 20s. 

I feel almost sorry for men who are trapped in such a limited view of attractiveness and desire. 

Rare for clients, this thread is about "Discount for in shape and good-looking clients". 

I don't know how old @pubic_assistance and you are but I know he's in good shape because of his lifestyle. 

 

[pubic_assistance]

22 minutes ago, marylander1940 said:

I don't know how old @pubic_assistance and you are but I know he's in good shape because of his lifestyle. 

Once again @KensingtonHomois playing gatekeeper...and now he's sending me out to pasture.

I'm only 53. I think I have a few more good years before I'm to be put-down 😄

[pubic_assistance]

43 minutes ago, KensingtonHomo said:

Personally I feel more attractive now and I enjoy sex more with a wider variety of men than I did in my 20s. 

Did you have to pay for sex in your 20s too ? 

[+ APPLE1]

People hire providers for a variety of reasons at all stages of life. To assume that anyone has to hire a provider simply to have sex is misinformed.

[+ KensingtonHomo]

38 minutes ago, marylander1940 said:

Rare for clients, this thread is about "Discount for in shape and good-looking clients". 

I don't know how old @pubic_assistance and you are but I know he's in good shape because of his lifestyle. 

 

What’s “rare for clients?” We hire primarily for convenience. Sure we could spend hours on Grindr and Scruff where everyone is flakey, and then see if a guy we’re attracted to fits into our competing schedules. Oddly, we are most often approached on the apps by guys in their 20s. Since we’re not attracted to most of them because they tend to be immature and bad at sex (as were we all), it’s kind of pointless. 

I’m younger than PA, but not by much. My husband is older, but also not by much. We’re both good looking guys (he’s a Disney prince come to life) and in good shape. And we both enjoy a wide variety of types of men. 

[marylander1940]

12 minutes ago, APPLE1 said:

People hire providers for a variety of reasons at all stages of life. To assume that anyone has to hire a provider simply to have sex is misinformed.

Hold on.... Most young folks don't have the need to hire other young in shape men, they usually get plenty of them for free. 

Most clients aren't young, it's a fact! 

[caramelsub]

19 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Did you have to pay for sex in your 20s too ? 

This topic has been discussed over and over again. I personally have been hiring since I was 20 years old. I do it for the convenience. Not because I can’t get any sex on my own. There are no bathhouses where I live or gay villages, and just one gay bar. Grindr is just not reliable for me. Trading pictures, ghosting, etc. Yes I believe attractive, young, in shape people hire too. Hiring is not just for people who can’t get any sex on their own.