Apology

[Rod Hagen]

Tore this from another thread. Put it category "No Fucking Shit".

I'm with you. For years, 3 actually, I've wrestled with "Are we paid for our time or for sex?" I know, "sex stupid". But it was really a problem for me. And I think my whole distaste with off-the-clock time with clients sprang out of this confusion.

 

But why be so dumb? Because clients often said things like "I'd pay just to talk with you", and many clients have. I've gone to Hollywood Hills homes for 3 hours at a time, had a nice dinner they've prepared/grilled, fucked 'em, and gotten paid for the entire 3 hours because that's what I insisted on. If people wanted more I recommended they hire me for an overnight and if that wasn't possible, tough shit.

 

I had clients paying me for conversation and companionship, and those who never had the opportunity often told me that they'd really like to, even if I didn't bring it up.

 

(To this day there is only one client I see regularly for lunch and coffee off the clock. I haven't gone so far as to actually buy him, Skinny Dick (my pet name for him. He calls me "Asshole"), Lunch, but I think I've given him a $5er now and then for Valet tips.)

 

Ok now I am an extremely cynical person. However, I was fooled, and I have only myself to blame. This male 4 male review site popped up about and I jumped in whole-Black-Heartedly. Even before there was a Message center I'd send Hooboy thoughts to post on such hot topics we now consider banal, as "Tipping", "Off The Clock Time", and "Escorts or Hustlers". Guess where I stood on each? Tips are almost expected, off the clock time's kind of retarded (I often state that as an engineer I'd never take a lunch with a client without getting a check for the time from Payroll), and Escorts are in a total different class than Hustlers because we are paid for our time, not sex. Why did I have such Mealy-Mouthed and utterly uninteresting opinions? Well as I said above until then, and since, it fit into my experience. I was getting tipped, paid to eat meals and talk, and told often how superior our services were to hustlers. Made superficial sense to me.

 

So where did this site fit into my, irrational, thought process and how did it mislead me down the wrong path? Interspersed here and there within Male4male you'd find disclaimers that read "We assume that money paid escorts is for their time only, any activities...." anyway, you know the line. I also found a lot of escort websites with similar protective statements. I knew at the time, on some level, that this was jut some sort of legal barrier, but it also reaffirmed what I also believed. I have also seen Deej, and others, in the Message Center say Escorts are paid for their time.

 

Well all that was enough for me. The Internet says it's true, so it must be. I smelled no hypocrisy.

 

Last week Joseph Itiel's book was really getting to me. I had to stop reading and do some processing. He goes on and on about how fortunate he's been to find escorts who aren't as "snooty" as Aaron Lawrence, and by extension "Me". They request nothing more than cash for the time spent fucking. Conversations, dinner, drive time were all off the clock. I'd encountered this "I pay for sex only" attitude before, and had become used to dismissing it. But this time, I don't know why, maybe because I've been escorting less and thinking a lot more, always a bad thing, his opinions poked at some part of my brain where thoughts lay, unknown to me, completely undeveloped.

 

"Ok, so his escorts accept money for sex only. He's not willing to pay for company, and I can't really fault him for that, but aren't we paid for our time? Isn't that the standard line?" I thought about this website, and of course the reviews came to mind. BINGO. "DID HE DELIVERY WHAT HE PROMISED" is one checkbox within all reviews, or inquires, about escorts. A good escort delivers what he promises. The shitty ones don't. I always knew that what is promised is sexual favors, but I, I don't know, I still figured that..well I didn’t think about it. But I realized at that moment that there was a paradox here. If the escort is paid for time only, then whether or not he delivers on any sexual favors is, logically, irrelevant. You paid for his time, you got his time. It was dawning on me, thickheaded me, that being paid for time is a sham. But I wasn't completely convinced, after all I was working against 3 years of stubborn conviction.

 

Then I remember Deej, as I mentioned before he like others, as far as I remember, has said that he pays for time only. Goddamn I am dumb. I'm not sure if it was a review or something he mentioned within a thread, but I remembered instantly him saying that when an escort snuggled for him but for whatever reason was unable or willing to get his ass torn open, Deej said something along the lines of "cuddling is fine, but I'm not paying if I'm not gettin'" CLICK. I fucking got it.

 

I'm serious, it was that sudden. I realized that I'm wrong. I've been an entire ass, I was so eager to believe that we were paid for time and not sex, why I don't know because I've never felt that there is anything at all wrong with being paid for sex, and I argued with people, tirelessly on the subject, and I was entirely wrong.

 

Escorts don't escort, I knew that (and in the words of Seinfeld: "Not that there's anything wrong with that). But I didn't fucking GET IT. I do now.

 

I apologize to anyone I attacked on the subject within the last 3.5 years. I was wrong, Joseph Itiel was right. "Paid for Time" is a legal sham. DUH.

 

This doesn't mean I'm going to have a free lunch for free with any of you! Just kidding.

 

Later

[Will]

Wow. Rod Hagen is my nominee for Mensch of the Year. It takes character to post a thread like this one, and for me that's a huge, huge "plus" on Rod Hagen's long list of attractions as an escort.

 

No, of course we don't pay solely for the escort's company or time. Psychotherapists are cheaper by the hour, they are better-educated listeners, and on occasion they actually make useful observations about one's life. The world is chockablock with good-looking, charming, well-mannered young men who are delighted to be asked out to dinner, or to the theater, and will do their part to make the evening's conversation sparkle. By comparison with this army of not-for-hire men, and although I've met plenty of charming, bright, and companionable escorts, I have never met one who was so devastatingly interesting that I would actually pay for his conversation alone.

 

On the contrary, when it comes to conversation, I think I'm worth as much as any escort in the land. In fact, I know an awful lot of brilliant people who are great and learned conversationalists on a wide range of topics; and they are all too old to be escorts, because it takes time for wisdom to ripen.

 

All things considered, I'll stick to my guns on this one. When I engage as escort, it's for an extended length of time: a whole afternoon, or a whole evening, or a weekend. He knows that I am going to pick up the tab for everything we eat and everything we do by way of entertainment and lodging. He also knows, as I do, that I'm not going to expect him to be buck naked and sporting a hard-on for the hours we're together. I know -- and he knows too, of course -- that I am going to pay for the whole of his company, his sexual company as well as his psychological company.

 

So I try to outline the kind of occasion I have in mind, and then I ask him how much the whole thing will cost. That way, neither he nor I has to get down to the on-the-clock/off-the-clock stuff, which I happen to think is tacky. Of course, I don't hire by the hour, generally, and that means that this method may not work for other clients and their escorts.

[woodlawn]

I don't get how anyone could take seriously the statement that men who hire escorts are paying for time only. If you read the reviews on this site it's obvious clients believe sex is what they're paying for. Is this thread supposed to be a joke?

[+ Lucky]

Or does someone just need some attention?

[ad rian]

>On the contrary, when it comes to conversation, I think I'm

>worth as much as any escort in the land. In fact, I know an

>awful lot of brilliant people who are great and learned

>conversationalists on a wide range of topics; and they are

>all too old to be escorts, because it takes time for wisdom

>to ripen.

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. I appreciate that escorts can have a lot of bad experiences, but what happens when they meet a polite, generous, interesting client. Sometimes, I honestly think that after sex, I should start to charge the escort for extra time. The world being what it is, ow likely is it that the escort would often get to travel in my circles?

 

That being the case, they might generally enjoy meeting a particular client and try to extend the time by being "overly" intimate. In my case, that is where the problem starts. If I am paying for an hour, I have a good idea of white I expect to occur. If an escort then makes himself comfortable in bed or listening to music or talking turns around and then having stayed longer than the hour demands to be paid for the "extra" time, I think that is wrong. It seems to me that characterizing the client/escort relationship as one of paying for time not sex only serves to encourage these kind of misunderstandings.

[Rick Munroe]

>Sometimes, I honestly think that after

>sex, I should start to charge the escort for extra time.

>The world being what it is, how likely is it that the escort

>would often get to travel in my circles?

 

I'm surprised you even hire escorts at all. I mean, what with most of us being poor little street urchins who were raised below the poverty level, we sure wouldn't know how to act around you "society folk." Wouldn't the others in your "circles" be aghast? :+

[Rod Hagen]

Lucky, with the exception of my chimming in on the Tahiti thread and asking about the Gay dude on SOTB, I've stayed away from this site for nearly 2 weeks. Fuck off.

 

Wood, no joke. I was dumb. When I'm wrong I say I'm wrong.

[Rod Hagen]

>The world being what it is, ow likely is it that the escort

>would often get to travel in my circles?

 

And I thought I was a snob. Holy crap.

[Guest BareBoy]

The relationship isn't easy. I know a lot of escorts I would like, ideally, also to have as friends; but it doesn't seem to work that way. Certainly I'd like to spend a lot more time with som e of them, but I can't really afford to take them out to dinner, buy them air tickets to Hawaii and so on . . . Of course in the first place, and perhaps in the last place, sex is what we pay for, and I guess it's no use pretending that (true of men and women, I'm told) it's difficult for a 'sex opbject' to also be a friend. Pity, though.

[ad rian]

>And I thought I was a snob. Holy crap.

 

Sorry, I had a feeling that what I said might be misinterpreted, but I did not take the time to edit it. All that I am pointing out is that sometimes escorts might actually also benefit from meeting certain clients such that apart from the sex in any other context the money might flow flow in the reverse direction. I think that is why it is better to see the escort/client relationship as one of payment for sex not time. If it is payment for time, then in some cases, perhaps the escort should pay. I am sorry if that is an affront to anybody's ego, but it is worth pointing out that we all have things that make us special. For the escort it is sexual skill and physical attractiveness. For some clients, it might be something else. I know my original post was inartful, but I think the underlying point is sound.

[NASAguy]

Rod-

My respect and admiration for you to post this latest message.

I, like everyone else, understand that when we hire an escort it is for some type of sexual/sensual/intimate encounter primarily (it does not have to be intercourse). The additional experience such as conversations, mutual dining, theater attending, etc are there to enhance the primary objective.

As far as compensation to the escort, I think that a middle of the ground approach is most reasonable. When hiring for a few hours or less I think paying the regularly hourly fee is appropriate because generally the time will usually all be spent within the client's hotel room, etc. and sex will be the primary activity.

For longer sessions, or where dining or other activities are specifically mentioned and booked, I think it appropriate for the escort to offer some appropriately discounted "total encounter" price. If I remember your prior posts correctly, it was here that you had some trouble accepting this concept and I hope that you are now seeing the fairness of it to all parties.

Thank you for being man enough to admit your change of heart. This can be a dangerous arena in which to do so.

[Guest newawlens]

>All

>that I am pointing out is that sometimes escorts might

>actually also benefit from meeting certain clients such that

>apart from the sex in any other context the money might flow

>flow in the reverse direction. I think that is why it is

>better to see the escort/client relationship as one of

>payment for sex not time. If it is payment for time, then

>in some cases, perhaps the escort should pay.

 

I agree with your point and see no cause for you to apologize. I have encountered many escorts who have this attitude that the client is lucky they are willing to take his money and spend time with him. Truth is, if you leave out the sex they don't have much to offer and are a lot less interesting than the client. Some of the escorts who post here seem to be in this category.

[Rod Hagen]

>I Truth is, if you leave

>out the sex they don't have much to offer and are a lot less

>interesting than the client. Some of the escorts who post

>here seem to be in this category.

 

Aren't you just a charming addition to our family. Welcome.

 

Dude, in all honesty I have from time to time, I've had a very hard time pulling anything itneresting (other than my dick) out of some clients. (Books? In LA, are you kidding, Films? anytihng with Julia Roberts, theatre? in LA, are you kidding? Travel? Does Disney count?). Truth is, and you know it, clients can be just as boring as anybody else (including escorts).

 

Sometimes the biggest challenge of escorting is just getting guys to talk.

 

I'm just sorry that you're such an undeveloped person you can't even make up some chit chat.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Fuck off or jack off?

 

Yes, sir, Rod. I will go to my room to fuck off.;-)

[ad rian]

>Truth is, and you

>know it, clients can be just as boring as anybody else

>(including escorts).

 

 

Yes, that is true, especially the parenthetical. The difference is, the client is paying you for sex. My only point is that I don't want to pay extra for an escort who likes my company etc, and decides to linger around expecting to get paid for the extra time. In those instances, as I said before, I think I should charge the escort for my time. If as escort finds me boring, fine. He still gets paid. If I find an escort boring or immature, he still expects me to pay. OK, but please don't try to sttick me for the extra time, or try to waste my time even if you don't expect pay. So let's all just pay for sex. Paying for time gets tricky on both sides.

[chrismac]

>The difference is, the client is paying you for sex. My only

>point is that I don't want to pay extra for an escort who

>likes my company etc, and decides to linger around expecting

>to get paid for the extra time.

 

Although I've had situations where the escort has stayed past the agreed-upon time out of interest in talking to me - the idea that I should pay him extra for that time never entered either of our minds.

 

I think the escort that would want to hang around to chat and then want extra money for that time would be an extremely rare occurence, given my personal experience, and the reviews I've read. I've never heard of such a thing until now.

[Rod Hagen]

>I think the escort that would want to hang around to chat

>and then want extra money for that time would be an

>extremely rare occurence, given my personal experience, and

>the reviews I've read. I've never heard of such a thing

>until now.

 

Yeah, sorry Ad Rian. Has this really happend to you, often? The escort's just hung around chatting and drinking Pepsi and watching TV, and THEN insists for more money. I was talking about "night out" stuff. It didn't even occur to me that someone would just loaf around your hotel suite or house ticking away the minutes and the dollars. That sucks, that escort's a total dick.

[Rick Munroe]

>If it is payment for time, then

>in some cases, perhaps the escort should pay. I am sorry if

>that is an affront to anybody's ego, but it is worth

>pointing out that we all have things that make us special.

 

OF COURSE clients are people and have their own wonderful attributes (physical & intellectual) but where is the website or publication for clients to advertise those special qualities? It doesn't exist. The point you're missing is that we are not choosing the client; it's the other way around. Yes, we can enjoy ourselves immensely (if I didn't, I would retire), but it's still a fact that it's the client who's making a choice. We have no resource to verify a client's credentials (I have no reason to; I'm just making a point). Are you suggesting that we have a client review site so we can choose clients based on pics/stats, social status & contacts, financial worth, educational background, career credibility, etc.?

 

I wonder if I should have asked Cher for a refund at her recent concert, because I preferred watching the sexy boy in front of me shake his hot ass in his cute little hiphugger jeans, and therefore he should have received the $125? (I know, that analogy didn't really fit but I enjoyed remembering butt-boy). }>

[Rod Hagen]

>>If it is payment for time, then

>>in some cases, perhaps the escort should pay. I am sorry if

>>that is an affront to anybody's ego, but it is worth

>>pointing out that we all have things that make us special.

 

>OF COURSE clients are people and have their own wonderful

>attributes (physical & intellectual) but where is the

>website or publication for clients to advertise those

>special qualities?

 

Rick, his point was that we are paid for sex, not time; we're Sex Maestros, not heads of state (he he I said "head"). He's right.

[ad rian]

>Yeah, sorry Ad Rian. Has this really happend to you, often?

> The escort's just hung around chatting and drinking Pepsi

>and watching TV, and THEN insists for more money. I was

>talking about "night out" stuff. It didn't even occur to me

>that someone would just loaf around your hotel suite or

>house ticking away the minutes and the dollars. That sucks,

>that escort's a total dick.

 

It has not happened often, but it has happened. This may be an offshoot of the escort/client relationship thread. At first, I thought it was a budding relationship, but it then became clear that although all the increased time was at his instigation, he did want payment. It was not bitter or acrimonious, but manipulative. My point is I pay for sex not companionship so if someone stays longer, or starts the show after more interaction so that it lasts longer then I don't want to be charged. As I said, paying for time confuses the issue, as does moving over some intimacy boundaries.

[ad rian]

>I wonder if I should have asked Cher for a refund at her

>recent concert, because I preferred watching the sexy boy in

>front of me shake his hot ass in his cute little hiphugger

>jeans, and therefore he should have received the $125? (I

>know, that analogy didn't really fit but I enjoyed

>remembering butt-boy). }>

 

Here is my point in a hypothetical. Let's say Calvin Klein cals up an esort who is a budding model, or David Geffen calls up an escort who is a budding actor. David or Calvin intend to pay for an hour, but the two starlets are so star struck that they want to stay longer and learn sat the feet of their masters. Two hours later, they leave. Should David or Calvin pay for 2 hours? I say no. They might have been worth everything to David and Calvin before the sex, but after the sex, I think any aditional time should be charged to the starlets. Any similarities to actual names of real people is entirely coincidental!

[Guest newawlens]

>Dude, in all honesty I have from time to time, I've had a

>very hard time pulling anything itneresting (other than my

>dick) out of some clients. (Books? In LA, are you kidding,

>Films? anytihng with Julia Roberts, theatre? in LA, are you

>kidding? Travel? Does Disney count?). Truth is, and you

>know it, clients can be just as boring as anybody else

>(including escorts).

 

Not being a hooker I don't get to meet too many clients. Maybe the ones who are attracted to you just happen to be the boring ones.

 

>Sometimes the biggest challenge of escorting is just getting

>guys to talk.

>

>I'm just sorry that you're such an undeveloped person you

>can't even make up some chit chat.

 

Point is, the escort is there to entertain me, not the other way around. So I don't feel called on to make up chit chat in order to draw him out, assuming there is anything there to draw out in the first place.

 

Like ad rian said, if you find clients dull, well, you're the one getting paid for the experience, not him. If you expect the client to show you a good time as well as pay you, I don't see what he's getting out of the deal. Sounds like all the disadvantages of going on a date plus the added disadvantage of having to pay.

[ad rian]

>OF COURSE clients are people and have their own wonderful

>attributes (physical & intellectual) but where is the

>website or publication for clients to advertise those

>special qualities?

 

Look, some of us have professions where we have hourly rates too (and yes those can be a lot higher than even the ridiculously high advertised rates of some escorts and agencies out there), and yes some of us have web sites too, and clients who purchase our services. My only point is that bearing in mind my own hourly rate, I think it is a bit ridiculous for escorts to want me to pay extra for their time once the sex that I have contracted for is over. It's what economist's call "opportunity cost".

[Rick Munroe]

If the escort wants to stay of his own volition for a longer time than contracted for, then absolutely, he has no right to expect payment for that extra time. I think we're all in agreement there. You may rest. :+

[Boston Guy]

About six months ago, I decided to take a break from M4M for a while. Along with Truth Teller, I decided that I was unhappy with the state of M4M and that I was taking it much too seriously. So, pretty much simultaneously with him, I decided to take a long-ish break. Since then, I have made only one post, in response to a personal plea.

 

But Rod's post caught my eye and I find that I want to respond. And since I've not posted for quite some time, I hope you'll excuse what I suspect will be quite a long post.

 

First, Rod, taking what you have written at face value, I am forced to the conclusion that the intellectual experience that brought you to your current realization was probably not an entirely pleasant one. Changing one's image of oneself from charming gentleman to dick-for-hire cannot be altogether satisfying. However, I find that being honest with oneself is by far the best policy and if this experience has led you to a place where you are more honest with yourself about what you do for a living, then I suspect that this is the beginning of moving to a better place, intellectually and emotionally. Since I wish you well, I hope that proves to be true. Regardless, though, I thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

 

In terms of the main question at hand – do we pay for time or for sex? – let's be honest: of course we pay for sex. The artful deception of paying for time may be a legally-necessary device that lends comfort to escort and client alike, but it is still just a device.

 

If it weren't for the sex provided by escorts, most clients simply wouldn't hire them. Similarly, if it wasn't for the 'release' provided by non-legit masseurs, most clients wouldn't hire them, either. And certainly most clients would not be willing to spend hundreds of dollars per hour to enjoy a platonic hour or two or more with a young escort who wasn't going to put out.

 

I'm not suggesting that spending non-sexual time with an escort isn't high on the agenda of some clients or that it can't be enjoyable or worthwhile. Instead, I'm suggesting that it's the sex and the sex alone that causes men to hire escorts. An escort who doesn't provide sex won't get hired, at least by most clients, while escorts who provide almost nothing but sex get hired all of the time.

 

Surely there are exceptions to all of these generalizations that I'm slinging here, but I think they tend to hold for most clients and certainly they hold for this one.

 

There are probably almost as many reasons for hiring an escort as there are clients who want to hire. A couple of years ago, I suggested here that there were two main categories of clients. I think I called them Whammers and Charmers. The first group consisted of clients who wanted to hire an escort for sex and not too much more. The men in the second group were looking more for a traditional 'date' with an escort. I think both are completely reasonable and defensible, if very different.

 

The secret to being happy with an escort experience is knowing what you want and being honest about that and then trying to get it. It's knowing what makes you happy. Unfortunately, some clients seem to either get confused about what they are looking for from the escort experience or to want too much from it or to simply want things the escort is not likely to be willing or able to provide. These clients are likely to be disappointed over and over and I think the myth of paying for time has had some role in the development of a set of cultural attitudes that make this kind of disappointment possible.

 

When men were hiring hustlers off the street corner, it seems unlikely that they made the kinds of advance preparation possible today in advance of hiring an escort. There were no review sites, no possibility of long, extended conversations and correspondences for weeks or months ahead of time, and no stable of readily-available, clean-cut young men who were willing and able to exchange cash for sex and then join the client for a night of dinner and the opera. Instead, the hustler of yesteryear was hired for sex and that was clear to everyone involved in the transaction.

 

Today, however, there are endless possibilities, brought about primarily by the kinds of communication made possible by the Internet but also by a growth in society's tolerance and acceptance of gay culture. We have review sites, we have thousands of escorts available online, and we have more and more sophisticated marketing techniques used by escorts in an attempt to stand out among the crowd and attract clients. (I am continually amused by the success Rick Monroe reaps from the marketing messages he very deliberately strews about this site; clearly, he understands how to market oneself on the Internet.)

 

All of these things add up to an enormous buzz about escorting. It's understandable if the original 'I pay you for sex' message has gotten lost in the deluge of advertisements from hot young men who want to come and spend some time with 'quality gentlemen' with cash to spare.

 

It's understandable if the young college students who want to make some extra cash also want to distinguish what they are doing from the activities of the hustlers on the corner. It's understandable if the escorts who become widely known on the Internet begin to take on a persona shaped by their own marketing – and also understandable, if regrettable, if those escorts begin to believe their own advertising and the heaps of praise sent their way by grateful clients who are happy to have found a reasonably respectable outlet for sex.

 

But still, we're paying for sex.

 

There are still hustlers out there on the street corner. There are escorts who have become wealthy from escorting. There are many, many escorts who make a very reasonable living simply escorting (and who often get the joke about being able to spend their days skiing and swimming at the expense of older men who want some sex). And there are the 'star' escorts, whose (fake) names have become very well known. But all are providing sex for money and if any of them were to simply provide time for money their business would most likely immediately dry up.

 

Which brings me to my next point: if there was confusion in your mind, just think about the confusion in the minds of clients. I often advise clients to know what you're getting and get what you're paying for. Many clients seem to go into an escort experience with trepidation or fear or nervousness or a sense of worry about whether or not they will prove worthy of the experience. I think that's nonsense. The client is paying the escort, not the other way around. The client should have reasonable expectations, should make those very clear before engaging the escort, and should participate as an equal partner throughout.

 

But the client shouldn't expect more than what he is paying for, for that way leads despair. An escort is not your friend and won't be. An escort is not your boyfriend, lover, or husband. An escort is not likely to want to spend time with you outside of the time you are paying for, for a variety of very good reasons, not least of which is that the escort and client are often at very different places in their lives. Further, the 'escort dynamic' can't really exist between two friends, for friends don't pay other friends for sex or for time. Most escorts understand this clearly. And, finally, let's not forget that some clients aren't all that attractive, especially in the eyes of an attractive 20-something.

 

If we get past the 'paying for time' notion and go back to the 'I'm paying for sex' notion, this all gets easier. It's easier to avoid the confusion of thinking – falsely – that an escort is our new best friend or a potential lover or significant other. If we know we're paying for sex, then we know what we each are providing and expecting from the other. It's easier to keep things in bounds. I'm not in the least suggesting that the experience cannot be or should not be pleasant or shouldn't include time outside the bedroom. But we're paying for sex and the escort is providing sex in return for our cash. It's that simple. People who become obsessed with or stalk escorts simply don't get it.

 

But some escorts don't get it either. I've hired many, many escorts and have had quite good times with almost all of them. The guys I've hired have been varied, but have usually been interesting and fun and sexy. I've enjoyed meeting them and spending time with them.

 

But I'm amused by those who offer to go to dinner with me 'on the clock.' From time to time, I'll invite an escort to join me for lunch or dinner. In those cases, I make it quite clear that I'll be happy to pick up the tab but that I categorically will not pay for their time as well during the meal. If the escort wants to accept my invitation, fine. If not, that's fine, too. I always have a novel at hand in my hotel room, ready to do service during a meal. I simply do not need or want the company of a young man for dinner badly enough to pay $200 per hour for that company. Others may differ with me on this and that's fine, so long as you are happy with what you are getting for your money.

 

Some escorts have gotten so out-of-hand in their expectations, that I find myself simply laughing at their requests. I've participated in M4M since its inception and I've posted here before that I won't pay more than $200 per hour. I still won't. I've had escorts ask me to pay $300 or $350 per hour and one even suggested $500 per hour. If I was confused about I was paying for, perhaps I could fall for this. But I simply don't need sex that badly and, more to the point, there are simply loads of perfectly fun guys available for $200 per hour or less, even in NYC and other high-priced areas.

 

Unfortunately, I think that M4M has had a hand in the development of this 'star escort' mentality and has had an effect on the market that I think is not entirely beneficial. M4M has increased public awareness of escorting and escorts and helped educate some men about hiring escorts and that's good. It has also had an enormous influence on raising prices across the country, in my opinion, as escorts in one location saw what guys in another were charging. It used to be that you could hire a great escort in some areas of the country for $90. Not any more.

 

M4M has also helped develop the 'star' escort by publicizing some escorts and by providing a mechanism here for them to advertise through their participation. It's not hard to see how easy it would be for someone who is constantly being fawned over by potential clients and would-be clients to start believing in their own splendor.

 

But M4M has also had another negative effect – years ago, I wrote about the dangers of what I saw to be a slippery slope in providing reviews of escorts. I felt and feel that there are many problems in the review process and that the reviews are easily manipulated, by escorts and clients alike. Worse, we've seen any number of cases where a young man who might be escorting part-time to make some cash has gotten skewered here.

 

How often have we seen a review where some disgruntled client lambasted an escort because he was disappointed that the escort failed to live up to the client's expectations – expectations that often seem to be way too high? Often it seems that a client has gone into an escort experience with expectations so high that he was bound to come away somewhat disappointed instead of coming away with a sense of pleasure at having enjoyed the particular charms of an easy-going young guy.

 

I have hired some of the 'star' escorts. In some cases, I've found the experience to be fun and interesting. In others, however, I've found the escort to be a little too full of himself. On the other hand, I enjoy hiring young guys (20 – 25) who are usually part-time escorts out to make some extra cash. People here at M4M love to trash AOL, but I continue to find attractive, fun, sexy guys available nationwide on AOL, often available on the spot, for around $200 and sometimes less. These are guys who are seldom reviewed – and who have often asked me not to submit a review. They don't want to participate in the 'escort game'. They don't want the publicity, don't want their friends and family to find their pictures on the Internet and simply want to make some cash. I can't count the number of guys I've found like this who were great fun and completely lacking in the 'professional star escort' syndrome.

 

Part of the answer, Rod, lies with the clients. Albinorat's description of 'the depressed older man whose body and age have made him unfit for the gay community nearest him and terrified to go into a bar' is quite sad. Clients who feel this way about themselves may easily fall into the hero-worship syndrome when dealing with attractive young guys and may delude themselves into thinking that 'high-quality' escorts provide a reasonable emotional outlet for them. It's easy to see how a client with no self-esteem may do anything – including paying exorbitant sums of money to just have dinner with an escort – in order to keep the person in their life a little longer. I think that's quite sad and it's not necessary. There are many other possibilities for happiness available to all of us – and I do mean all of us.

 

If we know that we're paying for sex and not time, then it's a little harder to justify putting tons of emotional baggage on the escort experience. That might be frightening or even disappointing to some clients, but honesty is best in the end.

 

I'd like to kindly suggest that the 50- or 60- or 70-something client with little self-esteem is not likely to find true happiness at the hands of escorts. He can certainly find good sex and that is one component of happiness. But it's neither sufficient nor even necessary for happiness. A true, deep, satisfying and abiding relationship with a 20-something escort is not likely to happen (although it can happen and does from time to time). We're much more likely to find happiness at the hands of our peers than the hands of escorts.

 

Hiring escorts for good sex makes sense. Hiring escorts to salvage an unhappy life probably doesn't; there are other things that can help more. We fall into the trap of thinking of the gay community as the collection of young people visible in the bars. But there are many, many older gay men and women who are quietly going about their lives and who would often welcome a new friend their own age and who could easily bring true friendship and true happiness to the life of a lonely, older gay man or woman.

 

I know that it's sometimes hard to find these people, although there are outlets, including volunteering. Or perhaps we should create a new M4M site where it's Men 4 Men and helps older people to connect?

 

I'm sorry that this got so long – it just got away from me. But the issue you raised, Rod, and the response from Albinorat hit several chords that I wanted to respond to.

 

My best to you all,

BG