Do you pay for poor performance?!?

[SirBillybob]

14 hours ago, LookingAround said:

Maybe google translate can help me with this post?? 

Google is your friend in terms of accessing educational resources on the basics of male sexual function. 

[+ nycman]

15 hours ago, LookingAround said:

Maybe google translate can help me with this post?? 

It won’t.

Even the world most advanced AI has no fucking clue what he’s trying to say.

[maninsoma]

1 hour ago, nycman said:

It won’t.

Even the world most advanced AI has no fucking clue what he’s trying to say.

I'll attempt to reword it in more straight-forward language, but maybe my interpretations are off the mark:

 

"No, these encounters don’t occur in a geopolitical context of hyper medicalization and pharmacology."  In sexual encounters like this, sometimes someone is going to have an erectile issue and it would be wrong to assume that every time this happens the answer is medication.

 

"These dudes are not accessing and consuming PDE5i meds or combo IM prostaglandin / papaverine / phentolamine."  These are types of ED meds; PDE5i meds include things like Viagra.  Obviously some guys are going to be using ED meds, so I'm not sure why there's a suggestion that no one would be accessing or consuming these meds.

 

"But they belong to a minority of men with autonomously accessible erectile reliability fundamentally irrespective of interactional context. You will also see here periodic claims of escorts posting on the board that they possess such membership."  I'm not sure if this is supposed to be sarcastic, but the gist is that escorts should have no difficulty getting an erection regardless of the physical appearance of their client or any other situational factor.

[SirBillybob]

4 hours ago, maninsoma said:

I appreciate the absence of questionably relatable consumer analogies so I can weigh in.(SBB)

"No, these encounters don’t occur in a geopolitical context of hyper medicalization and pharmacology."  In sexual encounters like this, sometimes someone is going to have an erectile issue and it would be wrong to assume that every time this happens the answer is medication. That’s an excellent point and I wish I had thought of putting it that way. However, the location context is such that the majority of clientele pre-assess for function. I don’t. The application or repurposing of meds outside of the clinical diagnosis for which they are intended is a relatively foreign concept in some settings and aligns with my understanding of male sexual response and how to approach the standard manifestations of same.

“These dudes are not accessing and consuming PDE5i meds or combo IM prostaglandin / papaverine / phentolamine."  These are types of ED meds; PDE5i meds include things like Viagra.  Obviously some guys are going to be using ED meds, so I'm not sure why there's a suggestion that no one would be accessing or consuming these meds. Such consumption is driven by client demand, not ED. There exists settings where client demand is consistently met without off-label meds consumption. The draw for me is not predicated on it, as my requirements for function are flexible and adaptive. The setting appeal is sufficient enough to override the aggravation of witnessing obsessional screening for erectile function.

"But they belong to a minority of men with autonomously accessible erectile reliability fundamentally irrespective of interactional context. You will also see here periodic claims of escorts posting on the board that they possess such membership."  I'm not sure if this is supposed to be sarcastic, but the gist is that escorts should have no difficulty getting an erection regardless of the physical appearance of their client or any other situational factor. The opposite. They should and do. That difficulty excludes a lot of sex work candidates. The continuum of unmedicated erectile capability is such that most candidates will categorically lean towards a particular subgroup of males that, due to nothing other than happenstance, access physiological erections unrelated to their subjectively preferred arousal templates. While a shortfall may be conceived of as potentially mediated by off-label meds, that is not the playbook in all settings. There are settings in which you can witness the apparent capacity for medically  unmediated robust erections when it would seem unexpected. It’s a trickle-down effect but can’t be bottled or blister-packed. Such settings represent no more than 25% of my lifetime hiring. They don’t influence my expectations or requirements in settings of variable erectile function for the specific type of arousal criteria over which many clients get their panties in a knot. Respect the variable capacity for automatic autonomous erectile function. 

Edited March 11 by SirBillybob

[soloyo215]

My two cents:

Regardless of "geopolitical context of hyper medicalization and pharmacology", I don't think of providers or compare them to a meal or an entertainment venue, where you have to pay regardless of the quality of the food or show. I think of providers as contractors who are responsible for delivering something that both parties agree upon, and where there are conversations about expectations, similar to a contract.

This situation doesn't look to me like a "buyer's remorse" situation from the consumer, it's a failure to deliver the expected service based on what is agreed, from the person contracted to deliver it, and the reason for the poor delivery is not beyond the control of the contractor, meaning, that it's not because of any accident, the weather or any out of the ordinary circumstances. It was, to borrow a line, because of geopolitical context of hyper medicalization and pharmacology, which is something that the provider/contractor can have control over, which makes him accountable for the improper delivery of services.

As such, in that situation I would have expected an adjustment in the agreed amount. Otherwise, I can easily see providers just promising things and then doing whatever they want simply because they think that the agreed money is guaranteed.

Just my thoughts, not law.

Edited March 11 by soloyo215

[SirBillybob]

It’s as if a new disorder has been manufactured. We have biogenic and/or psychogenic erectile disorder intrinsic to a male. And an absurd attempt to treat a version of erectile function that is neither of the former and not reflective of pathology, but driven by commercial expectations for function. How about forgoing this kind of amateurish diagnosis, sparing the guy’s uptake of drugs, and taking a chill pill oneself? Setting up compensation contingencies for functioning that evades absolute prediction on their part seems to be a far more onerous exercise than broadening capacity for erotic enjoyment that doesn’t entirely hinge on a few cubic centimetres of intracavernosal tissue. 

Edited March 11 by SirBillybob

[marylander1940]

On 3/8/2025 at 8:38 PM, str8mixed said:

Hello!

Had an experience with a repeat today... he blamed it on being high... but I still paid the full price... why? I don't know... it was a waste of time. So my question is should you pay for non performance??

now with your money he'll get high again. 

No, if he can't perform or things just don't work out within a few minutes of starting the session, pay the time it's owed by then and walk away. 

[Lotus-eater]

On 3/8/2025 at 5:44 PM, keroscenefire said:

Of course. You still pay for a meal at a restaurant or a play at the theater even if you didn't like it. Doesn't mean you have to ever see that provider again but yes you should always pay what is agreed upon even if the experience was not great. That's really just common sense.

What was promised: time or performance?

 

[LaffingBear]

Poor performance is subjective .  I don't think I ever had an encounter for which I didn't pay something.   Particularly if I spent the entire scheduled time. 

I was more likely to say "never mind" and leave some courtesy cancel-pay, if there was a significant issue early in the session.  And, I can think of some red flags that prudence might have suggested I should have canceled.   Like arriving for a 24-hour session with a very well known rentguy, excellent reputation,  I'd seen him for multiple visits.  He was at the end of a trip, and greeted me by telling me he'd had such a great trip, he was exhausted, was therefore doubtful he'd finish in our sessions.  I probably should have walked.

[+ JEC]

On 3/8/2025 at 8:58 PM, sync said:

I'm the worst for that.  I've paid a number of times for disappointments.  It's just the luck of the draw, but I have always paid.  😒

Same here.  For one, I sometimes realize I could have done a better time vetting.  Mostly, I don't want to get into a conflict that could turn ugly.

[mentalkink]

There's a couple of providers I have regular repeats with, sometimes they rate 10 sometimes they rate a 5.  And I would say all of that is not on the provider I own about 50% of that myself. I've learned that my expectations cannot be centered around any previous hot experience and I have to focus on the here and now in that current experience. These guys know my preferences, I know their limits.   Not getting erect happens, not being able to shoot happens.  That's not going to prompt me to ask for a discount.  I always make sure they know I respect them as a person despite the transactional nature of our encounter.  

Luckily I've not had the situation where the persons appearance /age/ vitals did not match IRL. I agree with some other posters on here that I would express my disappointment respectfully in that situation and offer to pay a portion of the fee and cut them loose. 

Some of us have unreasonable expectations and are just plain jerks to these providers.  No need for that. People want to do business with someone respectful. 

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

On 3/9/2025 at 3:50 AM, Jamie21 said:

If he absolutely promised to top you, but didn’t then if he’s honourable he’d offer you a discount,

This scenario happened to me once.  I paid the provider the full amount, then he probably handed back half to me.

I didn't hire the provider again; but, I also didn't list a bad review or warning

[jeezifonly]

We should remember that the nature of the encounter/arrangement is human-to-human. It’s exactly why we pay.
But, Humans aren’t machines with 100% task-performance ratings. Losses will be suffered occasionally. C’est la Guerre