Do you pay for poor performance?!?

[Occasional]

7 hours ago, keroscenefire said:

you should always pay what is agreed upon even if the experience was not great. That's really just common sense.

There are two sorts of 'not great'

The first sort is 'not really matching up to what I'd hoped for'. Perhaps, with a new provider, no real chemistry. He delivered, but somewhat perfunctory.  The analogy with a restauarnt could be "it had good reviews, but for me it was nothing special".

The second sort is simply not being in a position to deliver what the deal involved.  Not just an 'off day', but 'out of it'. The fact that the provider "blamed it on being high" shows that he recognised that he wasn't in a position to deliver. Not just an 'off day' - tired, half-hard perhaps, but right 'out of it' - no chance.  The analogy with a restaurant might be "you ordered the highly-reviewed chef's special, yes, but we were out of it.  I'll 'fess up - we gave you an equivalent supermarket ready-meal we had for emergencies in our freezer".

How the client proceeds - and how an honourable provide should respond - is very different in the differing situations.

[+ Jamie21]

If he absolutely promised to top you, but didn’t then if he’s honourable he’d offer you a discount, especially so if the failure was down to him being high. That’s him being cavalier towards you and it deserves to be called out by you if he doesn’t offer the discount. No excuse for being high. If he didn’t feel 100% ok to see you he should have asked you to postpone. 

If my clients ask me to top them (I do sensual massage but often clients want that to include sex, either as top or bottom) then I say there’s no guarantees or promises about it (nor extra charge for it). I think it has to feel right for both of us at the time, and the main activity is sensual massage. If they insist it has to happen then I’ll add an extra charge and I’ll make sure it happens or discount if it doesn’t. 
 

[Monarchy79]

9 hours ago, caramelsub said:

I won’t name names. But I had an encounter with a well reviewed provider here. However, his pics were very outdated. When he opened the door I did not know what to do. I didn’t have any desire to have sex with this person. I didn’t want to be rude and just run away. So I just chatted with him, allowed him to rub and massage my body a bit, paid him his fee and left. Wasted my money, but at least I know I won’t be going back to him.

Actually you should name names….

What if this is this guy’s shtick? He knows he’s a catfish, he knows the client is going to be uninterested, and he knows the client is going to feel guilty and pay him…

Imagine making $300 + per hour  to turn people OFF? 
 

That dude is brilliant!! 

[+ ApexNomad]

6 hours ago, Rod Hagen said:

It's up to you to tell the Escort beforehand that you insist he use Trimix. 

Respectfully, I don’t think a client should have to tell a provider how to do his job. Once I’ve communicated what I hope to get from the experience—whether it’s a boyfriend experience, a hard fuck, or something else—it’s on the provider to handle the rest. I’m a bottom, so I make sure I’m fully clean and prepped—that’s my responsibility. I don’t expect a provider to tell me that, just like I wouldn’t expect to have to tell a top that he needs Viagra or Trimix. How would I even know? That’s on him to manage.

Beyond that, even asking could be insulting or set the wrong tone before we’ve even met. I don’t want to start things off by implying I doubt his ability to perform. If a provider needs something to stay hard, that’s his responsibility to figure out—not mine.

[Colton]

6 hours ago, Rod Hagen said:

insist he use Trimix

This seems unreasonable. 

 

6 hours ago, Monarchy79 said:

for “unprepared” bottoms.

This seems reasonable, realizing accidents do occur. 

[caramelsub]

2 hours ago, Monarchy79 said:

Actually you should name names….

What if this is this guy’s shtick? He knows he’s a catfish, he knows the client is going to be uninterested, and he knows the client is going to feel guilty and pay him…

Imagine making $300 + per hour  to turn people OFF? 
 

That dude is brilliant!! 

I would name names, but the guy posts on here, and follows the forum. So I won’t be stirring up any drama!

[Jiminy]

I pay the agreed upon fee after the service has been rendered, usually. If I didn't like it, I don't tip and decide not to return. I try to get over the buyer's remorse in my own time.

[d.anders]

When I think of all the money I spent on theater tickets for shows I ended up not enjoying, I think about all the movies I hated, and get depressed even further. Entertainment almost always offers no refunds, especially the illegal kind.

I suppose if a provider stupidly blamed a bad performance on drugs, he deserves a sharp confrontation from his customer. Luckily for drug-using providers, most people, especially closeted gay men, will do anything to avoid confrontation. Is a confrontation ever worth the financial loss, especially if the risk of bodily harm is a possibility? How much is risk worth?

There certainly are times when being cheap or insisting on financial retribution could cause you more harm than good. In situations like these, it's far better to think fast and hard about your decisions, and not play the fool.

I know I can no longer defend myself in a physical fight. Until I can legally carry a gun, no amount of cash loss is going to justify the risk of bodily harm to me. I will always choose the safe path, bite the bullet and never hire the guy again. My life and health is too precious to me to think otherwise.

[Your Man in Arlington]

Interesting timing, last week I met up with a guy I'd seen well over a dozen times and he just couldn't perform in any capacity. I wrapped things up as quickly as possible, way less time than we usually spend, and sent him on his way with the usual envelope in hand.

I am/was VERY disappointed considering all of the time I spent getting ready, commuting, securing and paying for a day use room, prepping, etc.. I would have really appreciated some sort of acknowledgement/apology after the fact (he always texts me afterwards when things go well), but have heard nothing.

Everyone has bad/off days and unknown personal issues, but the course of action I've decided to take here is an extended break and see if the sting wears off.

[+ nycman]

90% of the time I pay and chalk it up to a learning experience. 

10% of the time I politely say "this isn’t going to work" and close the door in their face. 

I think of it the same way I do wine. There’s no way in hell I’m paying for a corked bottle of wine. But I make that clear at the first sip, not after I’ve drank 1/2 a glass. A bottle of wine that is technically "good", but that I just don’t "like”, is on me and a reminder that I need to learn how to pick better wines. 

Edited March 9 by nycman

[Monarchy79]

1 hour ago, caramelsub said:

I would name names, but the guy posts on here, and follows the forum. So I won’t be stirring up any drama!

I completely understand. In that case, keep it a secret to the grave. There’s enough drama…. 

[Ali Gator]

I'm the odd one out, but I totally disagree on 'your paying for his time'. You are actually paying to the services he offered for his time, to which you both agreed. 

I have had the same (hot, hunky, sexy) landscaper for over a decade. He comes early every Wednesday to cut my lawn and is here and gone within 30 minutes (I don't have a very large yard, very simple to cut). Then he's on to the next appointment in my neighborhood. He charges $50 for each appointment, so $200 at the end of the month (which is a little pricey for my neighborhood, but he does a decent job and I enjoy 'watching' him work outside). 

There was one appointment he showed up for in late August, and his lawn mower conked out within five-ten minutes. He had less than a 1/4 of my lawn cut when the mower went. For the next 20 minutes, I watch him in my driveway trying to restart the mower, and trying to fix it. Didn't happen, he throws it on the back of his truck and leaves. No phone call from him about the appointment and if he was going to reschedule, or if he would adjust the price - he left as though nothing happened. A few weeks later, I get my bill for August, and sure enough he charged me the full amount for this particular appointment in which he had mower trouble. WTF ? 

I deducted the $50 for that week when I wrote out the check, and wrote him a note reminding him that his mower broke less than ten minutes into my appointment, and he had only cut 1/4 of my yard. I told him my check was for $162 - $12 for his time on that particular day, and if he wanted to discuss it further to give me a call or knock on my door at the next appointment. He cashed the check, and I never heard anything else again.

There was no way I was paying him for 'his time' at my house trying to fix his mower. Similarly, why would I pay the full amount to a provider if he runs into a problem with his service during my appointment ? There's got to be an 'agreeable amount' somewhere for the two of us.

 

[Archangel]

I have because I pay up front. 

[SirBillybob]

15 hours ago, Rod Hagen said:

Firmly disagree.  No escort can guarantee a chem-free boner.  The fact that you would withhold money for that is shitty.

Like you, I would roll with less than optimal penile tumescence, particularly with a regular with whom enjoyment had historically occurred. I also avoid conflating the term performance with traditional bona fide erectile function because tumescence is only truly reflective of subjective sexual arousal on my side of the equation. I wouldn’t be capable of a performative erection, without all of the elements prompting true arousal, if my life depended on it.

The only logical reason to use performative nomenclature with an escort is the reality that their erectile function is potentially out of sync with what promotes physical male sexual arousal in general, or specific to their arousal template. Few things are more anathema to their erectile potential than the requirement that they simulate true arousal yet sustain punitive consequences for failure to deliver. Binding physical erection to monetary compensation is just one more way of ensuring a disconnect between two functional contexts, one naturalistic, the other obligatory. It doesn’t bode well for sexual health. Grousing about inconsistent capacity to perform, without attempting to grasp the complexity of male sexual response, is nothing short of childish.

Again, my view is framed within a regular repeat situation. If a new one off and no overt erection meeting the traditional threshold for various activities occurs, I won’t have actually initially dictated erectile requirements. It’s exploratory. Some guys are better at meeting my requirements for an exciting sexual encounter that doesn’t demand their penile arousal compared to others whose erectile capability is not obligatory but occurs notwithstanding, is invariant due to unique factors that guarantee consistent tumescence. But I want to avoid the problematic own goal of missing out on a good match in which erections are not uniformly on tap.

I never suggest or insist on chemical intervention. 

Many of my regulars have consistent robust erections. Could be serendipity. I wouldn’t myself take personal credit for it, and they are not contractually bound to it. Emancipated from a demand they might actually finesse other valued components of erotic interaction. 

Edited March 9 by SirBillybob

[LookingAround]

6 hours ago, SirBillybob said:

Like you, I would roll with less than optimal penile tumescence, particularly with a regular with whom enjoyment had historically occurred. I also avoid conflating the term performance with traditional bona fide erectile function because tumescence is only truly reflective of subjective sexual arousal on my side of the equation. I wouldn’t be capable of a performative erection, without all of the elements prompting true arousal, if my life depended on it.

The only logical reason to use performative nomenclature with an escort is the reality that their erectile function is potentially out of sync with what promotes physical male sexual arousal in general, or specific to their arousal template. Few things are more anathema to their erectile potential than the requirement that they simulate true arousal yet sustain punitive consequences for failure to deliver. Binding physical erection to monetary compensation is just one more way of ensuring a disconnect between two functional contexts, one naturalistic, the other obligatory. It doesn’t bode well for sexual health. Grousing about inconsistent capacity to perform, without attempting to grasp the complexity of male sexual response, is nothing short of childish.

Again, my view is framed within a regular repeat situation. If a new one off and no overt erection meeting the traditional threshold for various activities occurs, I won’t have actually initially dictated erectile requirements. It’s exploratory. Some guys are better at meeting my requirements for an exciting sexual encounter that doesn’t demand their penile arousal compared to others whose erectile capability is not obligatory but occurs notwithstanding, is invariant due to unique factors that guarantee consistent tumescence. But I want to avoid the problematic own goal of missing out on a good match in which erections are not uniformly on tap.

I never suggest or insist on chemical intervention. 

Many of my regulars have consistent robust erections. Could be serendipity. I wouldn’t myself take personal credit for it, and they are not contractually bound to it. Emancipated from a demand they might actually finesse other valued components of erotic interaction. 

Maybe google translate can help me with this post?? 

[Rod Hagen]

17 hours ago, ApexNomad said:

Respectfully, I don’t think a client should have to tell a provider how to do his job.

Before you hire someone to do a job, any job, you can tell them exactly how to do it.  And you know that.

Edited March 10 by Rod Hagen

[Rod Hagen]

9 hours ago, SirBillybob said:

Many of my regulars have consistent robust erections. Could be serendipity. 

It's Trimix.  This isn't a reflection on you.  It's Trimix.

[Rod Hagen]

19 hours ago, Jamie21 said:

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

absolutely!

[Rod Hagen]

23 hours ago, Monarchy79 said:

No one said anything about “withholding” money. 
If the arrangement is for the escort to top the customer, then a limp penis is a breach of that agreement, therefore payment arrangements/ alternatives of services need to be discussed. 
 

The same thing goes for “unprepared” bottoms. 

Now, in the face of a top being unable to top, then yeah sure on the fly discussions of alternatives of service AND never hiring him again seems totally reasonable.  

[Rod Hagen]

21 hours ago, LookingAround said:

I nominate this for the most absurd and dumbest post of the year. I'm saving it for posterity. 

 

 

 

No it's not, wise ass.  If you tell the top he needs to use Trimix before he arrives, or STRONGLY recommend he does, you're guaranteed to get the erection your hole desires and not have to be haggling with him at the door.

[+ ApexNomad]

5 hours ago, Rod Hagen said:

Before you hire someone to do a job, any job, you can tell them exactly how to do it.  And you know that.

There’s a difference between setting expectations and micromanaging execution. If I book a provider and say I want a boyfriend experience or a dominant top, that’s me setting expectations. In my opinion, it’s not my job to tell him how to get and maintain an erection. With what I’m paying, I would hope he knows how to cross the finish line.

How would I even know if a provider needs Trimix or Viagra? And if I start insisting they take it, does that mean I’m responsible for providing or paying for it? That doesn’t make sense. If they need something to perform, that’s for them to figure out—not for me to manage or finance.

[+ sniper]

If it's one of those guys with a la carte pricing options and you had agreed to the higher one and he did not provide that level, I think there's room to talk about paying for the option you actually got. If they charge a flat fee, I think you chalk it up as a learning experience and move on. But you always have to read the room. Are they high? Seem erratic/volatile? Hand them the money and gtfo.

[maninsoma]

On 3/8/2025 at 6:16 PM, LookingAround said:

Ummm no you don't. At least I am usually asked to not pay if I'm not happy with the meal. I explain why I didn't like it and the restaurant offers to take it off the bill or replace it with something else. Why should I pay for something I didn't eat or was inadequate. 

Judge Judy's explanation applies here: If you eat the entire steak at the restaurant and then complain, you still need to pay for it.  Clearly you liked it enough to eat it, so it isn't free.  If you take one bite and discover it's terrible, it's reasonable to expect to not pay because what was provided was unacceptable.

In this situation, I'd say that if the OP stayed for any significant length of time with the provider then of course he owes for the service.  If he left immediately after showing up because what was being provided was not what was advertised, then it's reasonable to not pay (though if someone has traveled to me I will likely give them a small amount for their travel time/costs).

[+ Twinkluvr]

Depends on how poor the performance was.  That’s why it’s good to be very specific about expectations so there is no grey area.  I’ve had lackluster performance where they at least gave it an honest shot, and some where the clear expectations were not met.  I would never stiff a guy completely unless they were a total prick (no pun intended).  But I also tip well for performance that goes above and beyond expectations.  I make all this explicit up front.  For example, no kissing is a deal breaker, being a bitch, not doing what you said you were going to do (bottom or top, etc) .  Just not great service, I pay, no tip, find someone else, give them feedback and review here!

[SirBillybob]

11 hours ago, Rod Hagen said:

It's Trimix.  This isn't a reflection on you.  It's Trimix.

No, these encounters don’t occur in a geopolitical context of hyper medicalization and pharmacology. These dudes are not accessing and consuming PDE5i meds or combo IM prostaglandin / papaverine / phentolamine. 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. 

Edited March 10 by SirBillybob