Conundrum

[Connosieurhands]

I hired a provider last night. He quoted $X for a one hour massage. I said I can’t do $X but I can do a slightly lower $Y. He readily agreed. When he got to my place, he said for $Y, he’d only do 40 mins. I was annoyed but he did the 40 min session. I enjoyed myself but he literally at minute 38 said ok 2 minutes left (clock watchers are annoying but I was also being cheap so it’s fair).
 

Anyway, when he left, he left his watch and his bracelet behind. I tried messaging him on the app we were communicating on before but he wasn’t online. He then said can you walk my stuff over to me a few blocks because he had left the area so it would at least be midway for him. Wtf. Like what do you do in that scenario??

 

I could have just blocked him and thrown out his shit but I didn’t want to be a bad person. He didn’t even seem grateful that I walked over and returned his stuff (just a perfunctory thank you). 

[nate_sf]

He left the stuff at your place, he should have come back and picked it up. You were generous to have met him half way - that speaks better to your good nature rather than his.

[+ Jamie21]

Never negotiate his rate. It sets the interaction off on the wrong foot. If you weren’t prepared to pay his rate you should just walk away:  ‘thanks but that’s not in my budget’.
I’m guessing he accepted your counter offer reluctantly probably because he had nothing else (maybe it was a quiet day). But he’s not going to be doing it with much enthusiasm, he already knows you don’t think he’s worth what he quoted you. Then he’s trying it on with you to see if you’ll deliver his stuff because he doesn’t value you. It cuts both ways. 
 

[+ SirBillybob]

Have I got this right?

Clock-watcher serving cock forgets watch he watched, assigning watch-walking client duties off the clock, half-cocked a share of the walk.

Patek Pathétique. 

Edited 9 hours ago by SirBillybob

[+ SirBillybob]

Cuts both ways. Integrity over charm bracelets.

[+ KensingtonHomo]

I never negotiate. I either pay what is quoted or walk away. I’ve even had providers try to negotiate once I’ve said no thanks. The only time I did that, I made a deposit and then he continued to negotiate and basically harass me. Then wouldn’t return the deposit (with 48 hours notice). He’s the one of two escorts that’s ever fucked me over on a deposit in 7 years of hiring.

I’m still not opposed to deposits but will never negotiate again. 

[+ SirBillybob]

[connoisseur]

[jmichaeliii]

24 minutes ago, KensingtonHomo said:

I never negotiate. I either pay what is quoted or walk away. I’ve even had providers try to negotiate once I’ve said no thanks. The only time I did that, I made a deposit and then he continued to negotiate and basically harass me. Then wouldn’t return the deposit (with 48 hours notice). He’s the one of two escorts that’s ever fucked me over on a deposit in 7 years of hiring.

I’m still not opposed to deposits but will never negotiate again. 

The only time I have been successful is if I offer extra hours.  If they are 350/hr and propose booking for 3 hrs, I often will get their time for 300 per.  I don't push for it but accept if it's amenable to them.  To this point I have not been short changed with the experience.

[Connosieurhands]

2 hours ago, Jamie21 said:

Never negotiate his rate. It sets the interaction off on the wrong foot. If you weren’t prepared to pay his rate you should just walk away:  ‘thanks but that’s not in my budget’.
I’m guessing he accepted your counter offer reluctantly probably because he had nothing else (maybe it was a quiet day). But he’s not going to be doing it with much enthusiasm, he already knows you don’t think he’s worth what he quoted you. Then he’s trying it on with you to see if you’ll deliver his stuff because he doesn’t value you. It cuts both ways. 
 

To be clear I didn’t try to negotiate. I said no thanks too expensive. He responded and said how much could you do and I said $Y. I left this out for the sake of brevity but do you not recommend responding if the provider tries to negotiate if you’ve said their offering is too expensive for you?

[Connosieurhands]

1 hour ago, SirBillybob said:

Have I got this right?

Clock-watcher serving cock forgets watch he watched, assigning watch-walking client duties off the clock, half-cocked a share of the walk.

Patek Pathétique. 

Hahah you win this thread. 

[+ SirBillybob]

46 minutes ago, Connosieurhands said:

To be clear I didn’t try to negotiate. I said no thanks too expensive. He responded and said how much could you do and I said $Y. I left this out for the sake of brevity but do you not recommend responding if the provider tries to negotiate if you’ve said their offering is too expensive for you?

We don’t have escrow options in this context, that offer shared risk naturally emerging with reciprocal yet natural mistrust, and associated safety nets. Escrow principles are not front-led by rigidity. If escrow were accessible there would be more flexibility in terms of resource exchange, negotiation, and contract place-holding.

Thus, my view is that there is scope for any of that without those guardrails. Otherwise, on the whole, our trade constraints may, well, constrain us, while signalling more overtly the dirty little secret that hovers behind escrow in the first place. Life is imperfect. 

Edited 8 hours ago by SirBillybob

[+ SirBillybob]

Isn’t there an operations manual than would render these discussions unnecessary. 🤷🏼‍♂️😏

[+ SirBillybob]

An hourly rate needs to exist because median session durations trend to 60 minutes. That is the ONLY reason. The rest is negotiable. Don’t ask? … don’t get; don’t discover what’s revisionist in stone. Here, you’ll get answers that others, including me, want you to embrace for their own perspective-anchoring. Talk to your service provider. 

Edited 8 hours ago by SirBillybob

[Mark_fl]

I don't negotiate, but I've been known to say something like:

"Thank you for your response. I'm sure you're worth it,  but that's out of my price range."

That's all. If they want to make another offer, great, but I haven't insulted anyone, and would expect full service should they make another offer.

[Nue2thegame]

I think that you treated him very kindly. FWIW, If I feel that the quoted rate is out of my range, I always politely decline and walk away. Any attempt on their part to negotiate a compromise is likely to leave both of us dissatisfied - him because he likely will feel shorted and me feeling that he would probably be resentful and hold back. IMHO  I never try to negotiate. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Nue2thegame

[+ Jamie21]

1 hour ago, Connosieurhands said:

To be clear I didn’t try to negotiate. I said no thanks too expensive. He responded and said how much could you do and I said $Y. I left this out for the sake of brevity but do you not recommend responding if the provider tries to negotiate if you’ve said their offering is too expensive for you?

Ah ok. I get clients saying it’s too expensive and I just reply with ‘ok good luck’ and leave it at that. I’m sure some of them hope I’ll come back like your guy did but I think that’s a mistake on his part.

His rate is the value he puts on his service. In this business that’s a very personal value because effectively you are selling yourself. So by reducing his rate, in response to your saying he’s too expensive, he’s effectively selling himself for less than he thinks he’s worth. Is that a good start point for a pleasurable experience? Will he be meeting you with a desire to please or will he be slightly resentful that you knocked him down, even if he responded to your answer on his rate with a reduction? Negotiating the rate is never good in my view. 

My approach is to never ever discount. It reduces your value, it makes the client think less of you and it leaves no one satisfied because the client gets a sub par experience. 

These services aren’t cheap, it’s usually decent amounts $300 upwards. If you’re looking for say $50 off are you really not able to afford the $300? I’m sure that most of the time the clients seeking a discount can afford the full price but they just like the idea of getting a ‘deal’ because it puts them one up on the guy they’re hiring and on all the other clients. It’s just a game. 

 

[Luv2play]

2 hours ago, Connosieurhands said:

To be clear I didn’t try to negotiate. I said no thanks too expensive. He responded and said how much could you do and I said $Y. I left this out for the sake of brevity but do you not recommend responding if the provider tries to negotiate if you’ve said their offering is too expensive for you?

Despite your denials, you did enter into a negotiation. By responding to his quoted rate by offering a lower “Y” amount, that was a negotiation right there. 

[Connosieurhands]

2 hours ago, SirBillybob said:

We don’t have escrow options in this context, that offer shared risk naturally emerging with reciprocal yet natural mistrust, and associated safety nets. Escrow principles are not front-led by rigidity. If escrow were accessible there would be more flexibility in terms of resource exchange, negotiation, and contract place-holding.

Thus, my view is that there is scope for any of that without those guardrails. Otherwise, on the whole, our trade constraints may, well, constrain us, while signalling more overtly the dirty little secret that hovers behind escrow in the first place. Life is imperfect. 

Lmao what 

[nate_sf]

14 minutes ago, Connosieurhands said:

Lmao what 

Lol welcome to the wonderful world of @SirBillybob. 

I asked Claude to provide me with an interpretation. Here's what it gave me... but perhaps this is even more confusing:

This passage is dense and somewhat convoluted, but here's what it's saying:

Main point: In whatever situation the writer is describing, there's no escrow mechanism available, and that absence causes problems.

Breaking it down:

Sentence 1: Escrow normally lets two parties who don't fully trust each other share risk. A neutral holder keeps the resource/payment until both sides fulfill their obligations, which creates a safety net. The writer says that option isn't available here. (The phrasing "reciprocal yet natural mistrust" just means both parties distrust each other, which is a normal starting point in a deal.)

Sentence 2: "Escrow principles are not front-led by rigidity" means escrow isn't fundamentally about rigid rules; it's actually meant to enable flexibility.

Sentence 3: If escrow were available, there'd be more room to exchange resources, negotiate, and hold contracts in a pending state until terms are met.

Sentence 4 (the confusing one): "There is scope for any of that without those guardrails" seems to mean the writer thinks those activities (exchange, negotiation, holding) could happen even without escrow's protections, though this reads ambiguously. It might also be a typo for "there is no scope."

Sentence 5: Without escrow, their trade limitations end up restricting them, and the lack exposes the uncomfortable truth underlying escrow: that it exists precisely because people don't trust each other.

Sentence 6: "Life is imperfect" is a resigned closing note, accepting that they'll have to work without this tool.

The gist: We have no escrow here, which is a shame because escrow would give us more flexibility and safety. Its absence constrains our trading and lays bare the mutual distrust that escrow is designed to paper over.

[Connosieurhands]

14 minutes ago, nate_sf said:

Lol welcome to the wonderful world of @SirBillybob. 

I asked Claude to provide me with an interpretation. Here's what it gave me... but perhaps this is even more confusing:

This passage is dense and somewhat convoluted, but here's what it's saying:

Main point: In whatever situation the writer is describing, there's no escrow mechanism available, and that absence causes problems.

Breaking it down:

Sentence 1: Escrow normally lets two parties who don't fully trust each other share risk. A neutral holder keeps the resource/payment until both sides fulfill their obligations, which creates a safety net. The writer says that option isn't available here. (The phrasing "reciprocal yet natural mistrust" just means both parties distrust each other, which is a normal starting point in a deal.)

Sentence 2: "Escrow principles are not front-led by rigidity" means escrow isn't fundamentally about rigid rules; it's actually meant to enable flexibility.

Sentence 3: If escrow were available, there'd be more room to exchange resources, negotiate, and hold contracts in a pending state until terms are met.

Sentence 4 (the confusing one): "There is scope for any of that without those guardrails" seems to mean the writer thinks those activities (exchange, negotiation, holding) could happen even without escrow's protections, though this reads ambiguously. It might also be a typo for "there is no scope."

Sentence 5: Without escrow, their trade limitations end up restricting them, and the lack exposes the uncomfortable truth underlying escrow: that it exists precisely because people don't trust each other.

Sentence 6: "Life is imperfect" is a resigned closing note, accepting that they'll have to work without this tool.

The gist: We have no escrow here, which is a shame because escrow would give us more flexibility and safety. Its absence constrains our trading and lays bare the mutual distrust that escrow is designed to paper over.

Wasting water for @SirBillybob is crazy work 💀

[+ SirBillybob]

47 minutes ago, nate_sf said:

Lol welcome to the wonderful world of @SirBillybob. 

I asked Claude to provide me with an interpretation. Here's what it gave me... but perhaps this is even more confusing:

This passage is dense and somewhat convoluted, but here's what it's saying:

Main point: In whatever situation the writer is describing, there's no escrow mechanism available, and that absence causes problems.

Breaking it down:

Sentence 1: Escrow normally lets two parties who don't fully trust each other share risk. A neutral holder keeps the resource/payment until both sides fulfill their obligations, which creates a safety net. The writer says that option isn't available here. (The phrasing "reciprocal yet natural mistrust" just means both parties distrust each other, which is a normal starting point in a deal.)

Sentence 2: "Escrow principles are not front-led by rigidity" means escrow isn't fundamentally about rigid rules; it's actually meant to enable flexibility.

Sentence 3: If escrow were available, there'd be more room to exchange resources, negotiate, and hold contracts in a pending state until terms are met.

Sentence 4 (the confusing one): "There is scope for any of that without those guardrails" seems to mean the writer thinks those activities (exchange, negotiation, holding) could happen even without escrow's protections, though this reads ambiguously. It might also be a typo for "there is no scope."

Sentence 5: Without escrow, their trade limitations end up restricting them, and the lack exposes the uncomfortable truth underlying escrow: that it exists precisely because people don't trust each other.

Sentence 6: "Life is imperfect" is a resigned closing note, accepting that they'll have to work without this tool.

The gist: We have no escrow here, which is a shame because escrow would give us more flexibility and safety. Its absence constrains our trading and lays bare the mutual distrust that escrow is designed to paper over.

LOL, thanks hon! I’m especially touched that you commissioned an independent translation which broadly arrived at my intended meaning. Nothing quite warms the heart of a chatroom contributor like hostile peer review accidentally validating the abstract. 😏

No mistype; I’m all for taking on some risk without passive resignation. Others may benefit from same. My only note is that I’d have shared with your budbot the commercial sex work backdrop. 

Clod gets me! He really really gets me! Please may I have his number?🙏🥰

If AI can read and it’s algorithms are based on human language and the entirety of what has been historically ever written, then there’s hope for the rest of you, even if not coinofsewers [sic].

Edited 5 hours ago by SirBillybob

[+ SirBillybob]

2 hours ago, Jamie21 said:

Ah ok. I get clients saying it’s too expensive and I just reply with ‘ok good luck’ and leave it at that. I’m sure some of them hope I’ll come back like your guy did but I think that’s a mistake on his part.

His rate is the value he puts on his service. In this business that’s a very personal value because effectively you are selling yourself. So by reducing his rate, in response to your saying he’s too expensive, he’s effectively selling himself for less than he thinks he’s worth. Is that a good start point for a pleasurable experience? Will he be meeting you with a desire to please or will he be slightly resentful that you knocked him down, even if he responded to your answer on his rate with a reduction? Negotiating the rate is never good in my view. 

My approach is to never ever discount. It reduces your value, it makes the client think less of you and it leaves no one satisfied because the client gets a sub par experience. 

These services aren’t cheap, it’s usually decent amounts $300 upwards. If you’re looking for say $50 off are you really not able to afford the $300? I’m sure that most of the time the clients seeking a discount can afford the full price but they just like the idea of getting a ‘deal’ because it puts them one up on the guy they’re hiring and on all the other clients. It’s just a game. 

 

My dearest Clod and others:

It’s an ultimately sensible and defensible stance to dislike and refuse negotiating if you are content with the amount of business your fixed rate produces … or in Clod’s case monthly sub … Everything after that is an elaborate moral psychology erected by a gaming seller around a pricing preference. I couldn’t find a kernel of truth in it that’s shareable and relatable on both sides of the transaction. 

I will typically have a reservation price I deem reasonable as counter … though I usually open the rate price myself … but I’m not about to put it forward if it apparently conveys title to a small but material portion of someone’s soul. Eeeeesh … bonah killah!

I would rather seek out somebody who regards his rate as a price rather than a measure of intrinsic worth; understands that willingness to pay isn’t the same as ability to pay; and can accept or decline my reservation price without construing it as an assault on his dignity, a dominance game, or grounds for providing a subpar experience.

YMMV. Clod gets it. 

Edited 4 hours ago by SirBillybob

[+ SirBillybob]

1 hour ago, Luv2play said:

Despite your denials, you did enter into a negotiation. By responding to his quoted rate by offering a lower “Y” amount, that was a negotiation right there. 

The premise of your critique is that negotiation is always categorically bad. If you had read his content you would have also picked up the sequence as it played out and perhaps back pedalled on appointing yourself as the arbiter of whether the OP interacted in good faith when he opined the cost would not work for him. 

Discuss. This ought to be fun. 

Edited 4 hours ago by SirBillybob

[Luv2play]

Just now, SirBillybob said:

The premise of your critique is that negotiation is always categorically bad.

Discuss. This ought to be fun. 

Having been a negotiator in my professional life, I thrive on negotiating in particular circumstances. But not in this hobby. I know the market well having participated in it for over 30 years and hire even today at a high level. But when a provider quotes a price I either accept or decline further discussions.

I agree with what Jamie21 said.  I suspect your hires are based on niggling the providers you seek out, but who knows. You are entitled to to do as you please. 

[+ SirBillybob]

59 minutes ago, Luv2play said:

Having been a negotiator in my professional life, I thrive on negotiating in particular circumstances. But not in this hobby. I know the market well having participated in it for over 30 years and hire even today at a high level. But when a provider quotes a price I either accept or decline further discussions.

I agree with what Jamie21 said.  I suspect your hires are based on niggling the providers you seek out, but who knows. You are entitled to to do as you please. 

And, true to my prediction … fun. 

You are correct. You don’t know. Why would you? The backbone of your supposed professional status appears to be making unsubstantiated assumptions, promoting a rigid compartmentalization of one dimension of consumer behaviour with no cogent basis of exceptionalism, presenting your alliance with another’s not particularly formidable point of view as evidence of being right, and staking a claim to having the system down because wash-rinse-repeat spans half a lifetime. 

IDK. I wouldn’t conflate professional mediator credentials with being irrefutably right. But what I can say, for me, is that doing it your way would feel like a life of absurdity. Thank goodness I had a decades-long head start without succumbing to non-useful hobby peer influence. 

Edited 4 hours ago by SirBillybob