Raise The Rate 2018 Proposal Letter

[FTM Zachary Prince]

I can see someone supplementing their income doing this, but I cannot see this being a great source of reliable income. While those guys are out there, they're not that many. Hence the word 'niche'.

 

That’s actually really the point of pricing a niche offering more expensively than something with broad appeal. At $1000 an hour, he doesn’t really need many clients. In fact, a few good regulars is all you need to be successful with something highly-specific like that. Then you don’t even have to advertise anymore, since you’re the only one offering what you’re offering and clients tend to be loyal in that circumstance.

 

I don’t have $1000 minimum because I cant bare the idea or charging less or don’t think of myself as someone who ever could charge $200 an hour, it’s because the experience I’m selling is extremely niche, hence my business model is designed for financial success and widespread availability without widespread appeal being an option for me. I don’t want to have to pretend to be someone or something I’m not in order to have the mass appeal I would need to survive doing this for $200 an hour.

 

I prefer to do three hour sessions rather than one hour sessions tho, so I just have those as my minimum. Since I’m employing such a low volume business model, it’s important to me to offer the best possible experience to every client I meet & I know that 2-3 hours is the correct amount of time for that (specifically for the niche that I offer). I can see how an hour is much more practical for a denying-you-sex fetish than what I do tho.

[FTM Zachary Prince]

The fly in the ointment from the very beginning. The OP seems to be involved with, and influenced by, female providers. (Based on previous posts and a statement about $500 per hour for a low-end escort. Maybe a female one, but we all know better when it comes to males.) I have no idea where this is going to go, but I'm fairly confident that gay men will never adopt the hetrosexual male client model.

 

I’m curious what you think is so different about gay men that would make you so confident. I realise that the “market norms” are different now, but these things do change over time, and losing all of our internet ad venues is certainly a game-changing event in the industry... Is there something about gay men’s psychology or spending habits that you think differ drastically from straight men’s?

[FTM Zachary Prince]

As always, PK, I am at your service, and happy to oblige. I absolutely commit to you that I will see to it that most escorts lower their rates. There's just one simple thing I'd like you to do for me, okay? Get Congress to decriminalize. Can you do that, please? Because that's the best way to lower rates.

 

Okay, if Tarte Gogo can have fun and go to rhetorical flourishes, I'm figuring I can, too. I hope that maybe what comes out of this, eventually, is a more informed debate than the one Congress just had.

 

Mostly what I'm for is multi-faceted resistance. I'm glad this is being debated. And my main rhetorical question for everyone to think about is this: if you don't like this idea of resisting, fine. So what method of resistance are you for?

 

I do think this proposal is a valid form of resistance. And just to clarify, part of what I mean by resistance is what people will do to survive. If you believe in supply and demand, which most of us seem to, FOSTA is more likely to drive rates up, not down. Again, I think that's just supply and demand.

 

By going after unspecified websites, Congress immediately put an artificial (or maybe it's better to say "legal") constraint on supply. It did nothing to change demand. It also increased risk. I think Fresh Fluff's point about a "cartel" is a good way to think about it. In the long run, she's probably right that cartels don't tend to work. But in order to work - think OPEC - it helps if you can put an immediate and serious constraint on supply - even if it is a politically manufactured one. That's what Congress actually just did.

 

Remember that. Escorts didn't do it. Congress did. Right now websites that offer supply are dropping like flies. Case in point. Out of curiosity, I clicked on Zachary's hyperlinks. If you click on TER Reviews, you get this:

 

https://www.theeroticreview.com/FOSTA.asp

 

Oops!

 

To make it even more complicated, what I just about supply and demand may not be quite right. Because by increasing risk, maybe Congress did actually decrease demand, as well. That remains to be seen. Several people in this thread have said, "Screw you then. I'm taking my testicles and going home." I think in part it really depends on what law enforcement does. Maybe we're about to see an aggressive war on any website that seems to have anything to do with sex. Because we all know that if there is sex, there could be sex trafficking!

 

I can speak for myself on this one. I got into this right when the internet (and Hooboy's site) was taking off. So in that sense, I was just very lucky. I spent close to $0 on websites or ads, because I let reviews on this website - which were free - speak for me. If I'd had to operate out of bars, street corners, or other venues, I probably would have said, "Fuck it." Over a long period of time, my assessment of personal legal risk in this area was somewhere between zero to minimal. If I had viewed the legal risk as being significant, I might have just stayed out of the game. Or I may have done exactly what this thread is talking about - the "less is more" strategy. I don't really know - it's all speculation, so it's all bullshit. But I'm pretty sure the basic point about supply and demand is right. If you reduce supply and increase risk, it's likely to drive rates up, not down. Maybe I'm wrong. But we'll all get an opportunity to see.

 

I actually can think of one real world example of just how far this could go. I was never hired by a Saudi sheikh. But I was friends with a couple of escorts who were. It's an absurd example, but is is actually real. You have huge religious and legal constraints on supply - to the point where Plan A is to leave the country to get access to supply. I knew one escort who had a regular who flew into the US under the pretense of going to a weight loss camp. That's moving to the Trump extreme of supply and demand: money just really wasn't an object. At the extreme, that's what happens when you say it's punishable by things like public flogging, or death.

 

My best guess is that decriminalizing would have the opposite effect. If you want to reduce rates, PK, I think that's our lobbying ticket.

 

When the Rentboy thing happened, I spent a lot of time reading article after article about how things work in countries that have decriminalized. My impression is that it generally led to a big increase in supply. I'm going to go toward the more extreme examples, just to make the point. It's as if sex trafficking was legalized. I read story after story about how poor women from Africa or Eastern Europe were being brought in to legal brothels. In some articles, allegations were made that even though it was legal, it was against their will. Like their pimps were connected to criminals back home who could say if they ran away, or didn't comply, their families would suffer. Honestly, I assume at least half of what I read was bullshit, made up or exaggerated by cops or moral warriors.

 

If you want a quick review of the alleged upsides and downsides of legal prostitution in Germany, here's a good link. It's worth noting that even though prostitution has been legal there since 2002, the law was changed last July to fight sex trafficking, which is still perceived as a big problem in Germany.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Germany#Legislative_reform_(2002)

 

The basic picture that seemed very clear was that decriminalizing tends to make things abundant, accessible, and cheap. That makes sense. It's happening with pot in California right now. If we did the same thing with "recreational" prostitution, I have every reason to think it would play out the same. Although we sure don't have to worry about that right now, do we? We're clearly headed in the opposite direction, full speed ahead.

 

Whatever Congress thinks they know about sex trafficking, it's far from clear that they know much about prostitution. All you have to do is read Congressional reports that equate hiring "prostitutes" with sex trafficking, and you can figure that out pretty quick. By that standard, I think we pretty much know that the President of the United States is himself a sex trafficker. Go figure.

 

I'm not sure I buy what Sen. Wyden said, that Congress will "regret" this vote. I think it's more reasonable to think that at some point - like in several years - they will clean the bill up.

 

In the mean time, I'm not at all surprised that escorts are thinking along the lines of the proposal this thread started with. And the negative reaction doesn't surprise me, either. If I were to be critical, I'd say we all fucked up last year by not storming the Capitol. But I'm a realist, and there's no way that was ever going to happen. And even if it did, it's far from clear that would have stopped the bill from passing.

 

If you don't think the reality is that there are going to be a lot of new constraints on supply, you're kidding yourselves. That's exactly what FOSTA is intended to do. And if you don't think that is somehow going to have an effect on price, you're probably kidding yourselves, too. I'll say it one more time just so my meaning is clear: that depends a lot on how aggressive enforcement of the law is. Fortunately, I don't think we have to worry about becoming just like Saudi Arabia. This won't become a hobby beyond the reach of anyone other than rich and powerful sheihks.

 

I stand by my basic argument, though. I wasn't arguing this is the best way to resist FOSTA. I could go with PK's line, and argue that the best way to resist is decriminalize. If we're talking about supply and demand, that's what seems most likely to increase supply and reduce rates.

 

Obviously, we're not headed to decriminalization anytime soon. Given the way we are headed, it makes complete sense to me that escorts are considering a "less is more" strategy of resistance - meaning raising rates and having fewer clients. I'm no expert, but it strikes me as the exact opposite of what's happening in Germany. And in both cases it's following the laws of supply and demand. And if you don't like it, I'd suggest you place the blame on the politicians who just made it that way.

 

The other thing I intended to say, and will say again, is that I love the fact that there's already organized efforts starting on how to resist. As much as I'd personally prefer to see it happen the way the kids in Florida are doing it - like let's get 100,000 or so people to DC next month - somehow I don't see that happening.

 

I think I can also say from personal experience that when it comes to overt resistance, there is no reason yet to think that anyone is going to get a lot of support. I actually was surprised how many regular Rentboy users were silent when Rentboy was thrown under the bus. And to be clear, I'm not judging that reaction. I'm simply stating it as a fact. I had a lot of discussions with people I'm very close to about how they felt. Most people felt there were plenty of other websites, and it just wasn't worth the fight. If FOSTA now means most of those websites go away, it might lead more people to rethink whether resistance makes sense. But that remains to be seen. It is very early days.

 

At this point, the main think I feel I know is that I am in favor of is resistance, plain and simple.

 

Amazing post. By the way, you can still access my TER profile, but you need a VPN. It just happened TODAY. I’m going to add a note to my signature; thank you for mentioning it. It IS a really good example of how deeply this bullshit is affecting the industry.

[Kevin Slater]

Hmm. Wasn’t it Michelle Obama who said

 

“When they go lower -we go higher “

 

 

 

I think it's "when they go lower, we go hire" -- which is basically what a lot of posts to this thread seem to be saying.

 

Kevin Slater

[biggerbilly]

That’s actually really the point of pricing a niche offering more expensively than something with broad appeal. At $1000 an hour, he doesn’t really need many clients. In fact, a few good regulars is all you need to be successful with something highly-specific like that. Then you don’t even have to advertise anymore, since you’re the only one offering what you’re offering and clients tend to be loyal in that circumstance.

 

You make it sound so easy. First you need to find a group of men, hopefully local, who have this precise kink. Then you have to hope that that can afford to pay $1000 an hour. And not only that, but are able to pay for more then 1 hour, and one a regular basis. Now let's say you are lucky enough to achieve all of this. You now have to pray to god they don't find someone that charges $500.

[MikeyGMin]

I’m curious what you think is so different about gay men that would make you so confident. I realise that the “market norms” are different now, but these things do change over time, and losing all of our internet ad venues is certainly a game-changing event in the industry... Is there something about gay men’s psychology or spending habits that you think differ drastically from straight men’s?

I think there's a fundamental difference in the dynamics of male/male and male/female relationships and attitudes about casual (compensated or not) sex.

 

Times are changing -- slowly -- but this is still a very patriarchal society and female "virtue" has a value to straight men that does not have a corollary in the gay male world. There is also a sizable difference in the stigma placed on female sex workers that requires additional compensation.

 

Finally, and probably most importantly, is that gay men can more easily access alternate hookups. They may not be the insanely hot young men we have hired, but there are plenty of acceptable peers if you just lower your expectations. It has always been easier for gay men to get sex. I know that things are loosening up in the straight world, but I don't think they are anywhere close to the traditional and current state of our hook ups. Gay men know this, so the cost/benefit is unlikely to ever be the same. At least not in my lifetime.

[+ purplekow]

At this point, the main think I feel I know is that I am in favor of is resistance, plain and simple.

 

I did not say I wanted to lower rates, what I said that lowering rates would be a more effective means of protest than raising them. You want to legalize marijuana, give out joints free on the street and have as many people as want to smoke do so right there and then. How many days of that before no one is paying attention to it. Raise the price and less people will be using it. The profits may go up but the likelihood of legislative reform or tacit acceptance goes down.

Unless I misinterpreted what you said, you were for raising rates as a protest. Now you are saying rates are going to go up because of the legislation. Perhaps they will or perhaps demand will go down as old geezers like me hire less and less people come to the show because it is not as well known how to make the connections. I stopped looking for Hamilton tickets when the prices became too rich for my pocket and even if they come down again I will probably be otherwise occupied, like trying to find Springsteen tickets.

So if you want to support raising rates in the spirit of lets get ours while we can, by all means do so. I am suggesting to you that raising rates as a form of protest is a ridiculous tactic and supporting the raise for that reason is a case of misdirection. If the rates are going up as a result of legislation, how is raising them a form of protest? To me it seems an act of convenient opportunism.

Edited April 8, 2018 by purplekow

[+ nycman]

It is industry standard.

Thanks, that phrase always makes me laugh.

[FTM Zachary Prince]

You make it sound so easy. First you need to find a group of men, hopefully local, who have this precise kink. Then you have to hope that that can afford to pay $1000 an hour. And not only that, but are able to pay for more then 1 hour, and one a regular basis. Now let's say you are lucky enough to achieve all of this. You now have to pray to god they don't find someone that charges $500.

 

I never said niche marketing was easy. He has to be very intelligent about where to look for his clients, and patient because even advertising in the right places will take time to yield results.

 

I disagree with the last sentence tho, based on extensive experience. Clients who are willing to pay $1000 and have found someone who they connect deeply with who understands their kink in an intimate way are generally not price shopping around... if they are seeing other escorts they can generally afford to do both. Yes, you do have to be extremely talented at your niche to retain your clients. In the case of this particular niche, which I also have a good amount of specific experience with, cuckolding (which includes sex denial) clients often prefer to fantasise that they are in a long term relationship with their escort and are not eager to switch to someone else, tho they may see multiple escorts long-term if they can afford it.

 

I definitely agree with you that it’s not the easiest angle to work, just pointing out that it’s possible for that approach to be successful with the right finesse.

 

What works successfully as a niche for any given escort may not be obvious at first glance. When I worked as a “female escort”, after a few years of gaining experience and marketing more generically, I decided that the worst part about escorting was shaving my body hair and I simply stopped doing it on a hunch that it could work out for me. Many people thought it was ludicrous that I would try to work with unshaved armpits (especially because mine were SO hairy), and even MORE ludicrous that I would dare to charge $1000 while working with hairy armpits. $1000 for a woman with hairy armpits? Clients thought it was so outrageous that they started threads on multiple national forums complaining about how disgusting it was and declaring that I would surely be out of business within a month or two! After all, 99% of straight clients want shaved armpits, right?? I started making six figures for the first time in my life within a year... the body hair fetishists went crazy and booked the shit out of me and I traveled almost the entire USA riding the success of not being afraid to do something weird and play to my strengths. I don’t think that these two situations are immediately comparable, but my experience taught me that a lot of different types of success are possible that aren’t immediately obvious from glancing at the market.

Edited April 8, 2018 by FTM Zachary Prince

[BigK]

I nominate this thread to win the prize for the most long winded posts.

[biggerbilly]

Is it possible to be successful, of course. The question is how likely. And yes, if a relationship has developed, price may not be an issue. But, a relationship doesn’t always happen after the first meeting. Everything requires a lot of things falling into place. Finding enough rich gay guys, with that kink, and developing enough relationships. I think you should probably consider something on the side before counting your fortunes.

 

I do think this thread is coming at things from the straight side of the fence. As noted by @MikeyGMin, the gay market place is different. You’re already dealing with a smaller market to begin with. And sex is not hard to come by. Do you know how many blow jobs I’ve been offered today on grindr? I don’t think a guy on tinder is getting that message as much.

[FTM Zachary Prince]

I’m curious if gay escorts feel like they are in market competition with hookup sites and guys who have free sex. I’ve always thought of freebies as not being my competition. I feel like some people choose to chase freebies and some choose to hire, mostly depending on their life circumstances. Chasing freebies can be time consuming, especially when seeking to fulfil niche sexual desires.

[instudiocity]

Things are moving faster than I expected...

 

Sincerely,

 

Blake Benz

 

Your local provider and ally

 

If this escorting thing doesn’t work out for you, I’m sure the SEIU would hire you as an organizing recruiter. Maybe you can affiliate you escort union either Service Employees... you could call it SWIU, Sex Workers International Union.

[biggerbilly]

@FTM Zachary Prince , you’re putting all your clients as a FTM escort on the same level as that of both gay/straight providers which I don’t think is an accurate picture. How many gay men hire female escorts and straight men hire gay ones? You fall into a unique category.

 

In looking at the psychological differences between the hiring practices of gay and straight men, your answer probably lines in the hiring practices of straight and gay women.

[BabyBoomer]

Do you know how many blow jobs I’ve been offered today on grindr?.

 

I can only imagine.

 

~Boomer~

[+ OliverSaks]

I’m curious if gay escorts feel like they are in market competition with hookup sites and guys who have free sex. I’ve always thought of freebies as not being my competition. I feel like some people choose to chase freebies and some choose to hire, mostly depending on their life circumstances. Chasing freebies can be time consuming, especially when seeking to fulfil niche sexual desires.

Freebies are competition, especially for the one hour and less type of client needs (the wham-bam type of thing)

 

I’d like to think that I am providing a memorable, unique experience, but sometimes a man is just looking to bust his nut and the apps suffice for a finding a quickie

[biggerbilly]

In addition, if any of you guys are using Grindr/Scruff or any apps as a means of advertising, or as a backup plan if the bottom falls out, and you don’t view freebies as competition; you better start!

[kevininsa]

You're kidding, right?

Yes, it was intended as sarcasm.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Unless I misinterpreted what you said, you were for raising rates as a protest. Now you are saying rates are going to go up because of the legislation. Perhaps they will or perhaps demand will go down as old geezers like me hire less and less people come to the show because it is not as well known how to make the connections. .... I am suggesting to you that raising rates as a form of protest is a ridiculous tactic and supporting the raise for that reason is a case of misdirection. If the rates are going up as a result of legislation, how is raising them a form of protest? To me it seems an act of convenient opportunism.

 

You did misinterpret some of what I said. Which is completely fair and understandable. I know I wrote a lot. And I was trying to make a series of nuanced points.

 

I don't disagree with anything you express in the quote above. But I don't think it reflects exactly what I said. I did say rates are probably going up as a result of this legislation. Not because it makes sense as a protest. Because that's the most likely result of Congress trying to cut off supply. And you're absolutely right. If demand goes way down, too, that matters. And as you know, I am not a trained economist.

 

Now let me take a few steps back. This discussion is beyond bizarre, as far as I am concerned. And beyond that, the whole situation is beyond bizarre. An online ecosystem that worked incredibly well for me (and you, and most of us here, if I may suggest) is now at risk. It just pisses me off. And I think I'm probably being more consistent than most people here about pointing out, pretty much every time I post on this issue, that the sex trafficking problem is quite real. We ought to be thinking about how we can get a handle on it, rather than being crushed by it. Having said that, my biggest fear is that there's a lot of reactive and wishful thinking going on, starting with Congress. And they are just out to crush us.

 

As far as Blake's proposal is concerned, let me take a step back on that, too. On a separate thread, in the politics section, which he started, he floated the vague idea of somehow making FOSTA "work in our favor." He also said he wanted to direct his information and discussion only to providers. I assumed, incorrectly, that he was talking about some form of protest or organizing. So my reaction, which I stated, was why would you leave clients out? He corrected me, appropriately, and said he had no intention of encouraging people to "speak out." So at that point I just backed off.

 

I jumped back in when he started this thread, which is in the "Ask An Escort" section. I'm sure some of the nuances of what I meant probably weren't clear. But I assumed we're now not talking about protest, or political organizing - which Blake said he is not interested in, at all. We're talking about business, as in what escorts are going to do to resist and survive. I was the one who started using the word "resistance," not Blake.

 

The other thing I said, to put it in context, is that there were elements of what was being said that were "more like politically illiterate." I also said "this is not a unifying response." It isn't exactly shocking that a proposal to raise rates $100 was not well received by the people who would be paying that $100, is it? I implied this by talking about my experience raising rent as a landlord, but now I'll just say it bluntly. If I were going to do that, I wouldn't ask. What's the point? I'd just do it. I've never had a tenant who thanked me for raising their rent. They do thank me when I fix things.

 

Now let me tell you what I liked about it, and still like. And I'm quoting what I said, verbatim, because I don't want to switch the goal posts. I said it seemed like Congress is basically trying to "exterminate you." I view this as young escorts like Blake and Zachary - and I am pretty sure many others, based on what escorts are saying here - who are thinking about how to resist and survive. Again, "resistance" is my word - not their's. Here were Blake's words, verbatim: "We must stand together in unison as sex-workers." So I don't see that as a call to protest. I see it as a business plan to hunker down, resist, and survive. And in that context, I'll repeat what I said, which I still mean. I love it. I love it. I love it. I love the fact that young escorts are thinking about what I view as resistance, and survival.

 

Now, if it were up to me, and I got to dictate how things got done, I would go a different route. I'd try to unify, build a huge coalition, get as many allies as possible, and come up with a long term organizing plan. I did that for about two decades as an organizer, and - sorry - I think I was quite good at it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with what Blake had in mind, and with what this thread is about.

 

Here's another thing I said. Most escorts don't think like organizers, or political activists. But they do tend to think like entrepreneurs. You can criticize whether Blake or Zachary are good at running their business, and some of you have. But absolutely no part of what they are saying surprises me. With all due respect to everyone here - because my core conviction is we are all on the same side - everything they are saying is absolutely predictable. It's exactly what I would predict from a group of people that Congress is trying to - my word again - "exterminate." They are thinking about how to hunker down, resist, and survive.

 

The final and most important part of what I said were these words: supply and demand. A lot of people weighing in here offered their own ideas of how future supply and demand might work. None of us are right, because it's all speculation. So, like you, I'm gazing at a crystal ball.

 

Congress is intentionally trying to cut off supply, and they are hoping that will reduce demand. (NYPD cops in one newspaper article just actually admitted their efforts won't stop "regulars." They are just trying to deter what one cop called "legitimate" people - whatever the fuck that means!). So if you cut off supply without reducing demand, and increase risk, guess what happens? So is it really a surprise that escorts are thinking. "Okay, less is more. We'll have fewer customers, who are regulars, and charge more money." Like that or not, it's a business model that is actually completely consistent with what the NYPD just predicted in the NY Post.

 

So I'm not talking about a form of protest. I'm making guesses about supply and demand. Is that the way it will work? I don't know. I'll repeat it again: it largely depends on how aggressive law enforcement is, and whether that really deters demand. I think you agree. We just don't know that yet. But you are right about this: I do think it's a likely scenario that rates are going to go up as a result of the legislation. A lot of escorts are going to focus on how to survive in a more challenging market, where "regulars" are likely to be looking more than ever for security and discretion.

 

Obviously, it's absurd to talk about decriminalization right now. And it's fair to say that you weren't really saying escorts should lower our rates. But I did mean what I said. If we decriminalized, my best guess is that would increase supply, and would tend to lower rates. That's a huge generalization. But I think it's a fair one if you want a simple one liner about what it's done in countries like Germany. My point was that we are going in exactly the opposite direction, fast. So I'm guessing we'll have the opposite results. I'll say it again. Supply is being cut off almost as we speak. And that is the exact intention of FOSTA. They just took out Backpage, which is huge. We have no idea who is next.

 

It's completely fair for people to criticize the ideas about a business model Blake put up here. And let me say again, "resistance" is my word, not his. But I will repeat the question I asked: if this isn't the right way to resist, what is? That's meant as a rhetorical question, because I don't want to hijack the thread any more than I have already.

 

So here we are. The handwriting has been on the wall for at least a few years. One couldn't help notice Rentboy in 2015, and SESTA being debated last year. So far, it seems like we are much better at reacting than at getting ahead of things. I think many people feel we have no choice. But if that's the case, I'm sorry. Don't be surprised if younger escorts, who feel completely cynical about Congress anyway, focus on a plan to survive this thing. It was completely predictable. If we do nothing else, I'd guess that's about the only place it has to go.

 

I've been asking around to people I know very well and trust. And mostly what I think I hear is that people think it's not worth pushing back, because they don't feel we can actually change anything. If I'm not hearing what people are actually saying, please correct me. It breaks my heart, and I would love to be wrong. But if I'm right, don't be surprised if what happened in Florida happens here. Younger people who are interested in survival are going to go off and do it their way, because it's better than nothing. That should not come as a surprise.

 

Are Zachary and Blake older and wiser? No, of course not. We are. So if we think we have a better idea, we better actually start coming up with it.

Edited April 8, 2018 by stevenkesslar

[+ FreshFluff]

FTM Zachary Prince,

 

I think it's great that you can command a high rate, but try to see this from a client's point of view. Suggesting that clients should "get a 2nd job" or "make an investment into something income-generating" may turn people off. So may your statement that your rate is hundreds of dollars above the norm. You might want to consider deleting those parts of your post. I can delete this post as well if you'd like.

[BabyBoomer]

FTM Zachary Prince,

 

I think it's great that you can command a high rate, but try to see this from a client's point of view. Suggesting that clients should "get a 2nd job" or "make an investment into something income-generating" may turn people off. So may your statement that your rate is hundreds of dollars above the norm. You might want to consider deleting those parts of your post. I can delete this post as well if you'd like.

 

ZP can delete those parts from his post, but he can't delete them from all the numerous posters that quoted him.

 

~Boomer~

[MichBoyBlake]

In a way I agree with the protest sentiment of this idea, but where I am there's relatively low demand and low supply. There's still quite a bit of homophobia here and a lot of deeply closeted men. A lot of the potential clients here are first-timers, sometimes even first-timers with same-sex encounters completely. Raising my rate by the suggested amount would do nothing good for me or for the industry as a whole here.

 

There are a lot of republicans where I am so I mean, at the best maybe I could bring up the politics a bit with clients that I might be able to trust won't get annoyed by it, but also where I am politics is kinda a taboo subject to bring up with people outside of family or close friends, so... sorry @BlakeBenz (nice name btw ) but this really isn't something I could commit to at all.

[FTM Zachary Prince]

FTM Zachary Prince,

 

I think it's great that you can command a high rate, but try to see this from a client's point of view. Suggesting that clients should "get a 2nd job" or "make an investment into something income-generating" may turn people off. So may your statement that your rate is hundreds of dollars above the norm. You might want to consider deleting those parts of your post. I can delete this post as well if you'd like.

 

I’m not here to collect clients who would be offended by these ideas. Nor am I new to commenting on discussion boards. I am fine with turning off clients who would be offended by my suggestion that they should hire less frequently or add another stream of income. It’s basic advice for anyone who finds themself involved in an expensive hobby on a budget. If someone can’t handle basic economic advice, they have an entitlement issue. My target clients don’t have any sense of entitlement to hire with any specific level of frequency. If you can’t afford to hire as often as you like, hire less frequently or add a stream of income. I stand behind the sentiment. I certainly have to make the same kind of economic decisions with regard to my expensive hobbies too.

 

No one has an issue when escorts are suggested to get a 2nd job when they’re struggling to make ends meet (which usually doesn’t involve any $200/hr hobby expenses). But when it’s suggested to clients to do the same if they want to continue to indulge with the same level of frequency in a growingly expensive hobby, suddenly people have a problem with that suggestion. Interesting double standard.

[+ SundayZip]

... We're talking about business, as in what escorts are going to do to resist and survive....

I can think of a more productive form of resistance.

"Dear Fellow Providers,

 

This letter is in regards to the Sex Worker Protection campaign of 2018, #SexWorkerProtection2018. You may be aware of the effects FOSTA/SESTA has had on your business and peace of mind. I am requesting, on the behalf of the entire adult industry, that you ask your clients to contribute an amount equal to 10% of your fee (or more), to one of following organizations that lobby for sex worker rights or provide legal support for people who host websites related to sex work:

 

< list of organizations>

 

etc... "

 

This is what would motivate me to spend more money as opposed to the opportunistic money-grab being proposed by the OP.

[nsguy45]

I appreciate the escort's point of view. But, as a client, if my regulars raise their rates to 500 an hour, I would rather find an NYU or Columbia boytoy on seeking arrangements who would be happy with 3K monthly for frequent meetings.

Amen.