dealing with tweaker clients...

[theDCeBOY]

okay, i need some help from my fellow escorts.

how do you guys deal with clients who are clearly tweaking?

 

i've had some nasty insomnia lately. when i do manage to sleep, it is generally only for a couple of hours just before noon. so, this morning, when i got an email asking if i provide morning service, i responded that i'm not really much of a morning person, but, if i'm still up in the morning, i'm happy to set something up.

 

we'll call the prospective client charlie chan. since it is 6am on a monday morning, i assumed that charlie was either just up & freshly horny, OR trying to keep his tweakend going. charlie's emails skipped around. first he asked if i could get hard (there's a clue... no non-methed client has ever asked that). next charlie started with the impatient wanting it NOW comments, even though he was aware that i'd need to shower before leaving dupont circle for bethesda. charlie then asked if i would be the bottom; i said i'm willing to try. charlie then went back to wanting a top. even though he'd already visited my website which indicates that i only take outcalls, he asked twice if he could come here. he also then indicated that he is "a sex pig".

 

so at this point, i sent the following email:

"i think i'm going to decline. you take care & have a great day."

charlie then responded again, telling me that he would be willing to pay more than the established fee. i sent back:

"i don't want to be rude, but it sounds an awful lot like you're a tweaker. i find meth makes people difficult to deal with. sorry."

charlie's reply:

"I buy your time. If you refuse to serve, you don't have to lecture on my life. How about $300."

 

mind you, i never told the man that he shouldn't do anything. i just declined the call and told him why--because i've found people on crystal meth to be difficult to deal with... they have no sense of time, they are demanding, they "forget" to pay. so i responded back to charlie & asked him not to contact me again. you guessed it, he hasn't given up. so far, there have been 4 replies to my email asking him not to contact me.

"$400?! Please." and "if you don't trust me, i can give you my credit card numder" among them. just now, this arrived:

"you talk like republican escort, you asked me to stop, why didn't you stop first. $500, take it or leave, just because you have a huge dick doesn't mean you should have such a huge attitude. I give you five minutes, or i will call other guys."

 

i suppose anyone who can form cogent sentences without resorting to a crackpipe for assistance sounds like a republican to mr. chan. i don't understand how my party affiliation (which i never shared with him) fits in here though.

 

so anyway, how do you guys deal with such clients? i readily admit that i could have REALLY used the money right now. (the car would have been half fixed!) but, the increasing demands, the lack of appreciation for time, the forgetting to pay, etc., that you have to deal with with tweaker clients just doesn't seem worth it. now, i really don't care what people do with their lives; i never once told him he shouldn't do what he wants to do. i just didn't want to deal with the side effects. i tried to be polite and respectfully decline the appointment. i also gave him a polite explanation as to why. should i just have ignored him?

 

is there a way to deal with such clients in which i actually take the call, but don't have to deal with the possible negatives? bear in mind, i'm a LITTLE guy. if a tweaked out client decides to conveniently forget to pay or suddenly discovers that he doesn't have all of the money, there's precious little i can do.

 

adviceseses?

 

thanks!

 

 

oh... ps: i responded to charlie's ultimatum saying that he should go ahead & call other guys. of course, there's yet more email from him. the latest:

"a hot white guy( he is my regular) just came here. would you like to listen to our noise? my $500 offer still here, if you chang you mind in one hour, drop mr a line, you can come here join us. although i admire your mind (as well as body), i really recommend you be friendly toward your potential client. I have been being businessmen for 20 years. i understanf that better than you. I have my life style like everbody, you have yours. I buy your time, but i am not going to sellmy life style. take care"

 

i was going to ignore the email, but i thought he might keep trying, so i sent him:

"i'm glad you've found someone to entertain.

you guys have fun.

 

be well... "

[bigguyinpasadena]

Ethan,this guy would have been trouble-regardless of the money(which probablely meant"a trip to an ATM""let me write you a check"or some other BS)and,if you listen to your inner voice,you already know this.

Tweakers are lying scumbags,they take forever to get a nut,and then blame you for not being able to get off.

And how often does this kind of scene end in a bad way?You were lucky to finally get rid of the guy-although I feel you tried way to hard to negotiate with him in a way that would not seem unpleasant.This guy was not worth all of the energy you put into it.

[+ Lucky]

I am not sure you wre "lucky" to get rid of him since it seems as though you got rid of him by being smart!

I wonder if the client was Orrin hatch or some other big republican?

[axebahia]

I don't understand why the correspondence dragged on so long. I think those kind of exchanges are not in the best interests of clients or escorts having regard to law enforcement issues. The only long exchanges that I have ever had with escorts have been due to advance scheduling issues which as I have said elsewhere, I don't agree with anyway.

[guptasa1]

Ohhhh...so that's what tweaking means. (I'd been trying to figure that out for a while now - lol.)

 

I'm not an escort, but I can't really see how you could've handled it any more politely than you did.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

An Escort Answer.

 

Simply put, in the circumstances you described, you should have simply not responded to his continued responses once you asked him not to contact you again.

 

Generally put, you need to establish specific boundaries: i.e.. Monday and Tuesdays are my days off unless I take other days off for other reasons; as I am not a morning person, unless schedule IN ADVANCE, I do not see clients before noon.(I simply would have answered him at lunchtime, stating I am sorry to have missed him and advising that if he had contact me beforehand I could have been available at the hour he requested - tweakers rarely plan).

 

An escort needs to establish boundaries and keep to them as closely as possible, for his own sake, as well as for the sake of others.

[+ Lucky]

RE: A Franco Answer

 

"Monday and Tuesdays are my days off unless I take other days off for other reasons; as I am not a morning person, unless schedule IN ADVANCE, I do not see clients before noon."

 

And you need 8 hours of sleep, preferably after milk and cookies, and you must have your favorite stuffed pillow or you won't spend the night!

[Guest Daddybottom]

I'm not an escort but I've been with a lot guys who were high on coke and crystal.

 

You could have gone to see him and asked for the money in advance. But if he refused you'd still have made a long trip for nothing. And if he did pay you might feel a little guilty for enabling a behavior as self destructive as crystal use. I'm certainly not proud of all the guys I hired who I knew were escorting (at least in part) to satisfy their drug addictions. Finally, I think you have to trust your instincts since you're meeting up with a stranger and there is always a risk of financial and physical harm. There was a thread on here not too long ago where a San Francisco escort told how he spent 90 minutes traveling to meet a client and then 10 hours with the client only to be ditched without getting paid.

 

I don't think you needed to reply to the clients emails after you'd told him you were not interested. I don't see what you accomplished and its always good manners to give the other person the last word.

 

I actually feel kind of bad for the guy. He not only sounds lonely but he is also likely developing a drug problem. And there is nothing any of us can do to help him.

[theDCeBOY]

several times i advised him that i wasn't interested. i told him quite a few times that he should seek other amusements. that's not illegal. the only talk of illegal activities came from him. i'm not worried if mr. chan implicates himself.

[theDCeBOY]

RE: An Escort Answer.

 

yeah, i'm guessing in future i'll defer responses until later in the day. at FIRST i was leaning more toward him just being a guy who woke up horny & wanted something before heading to work, though, so i sent my initial response.

 

deferring the whole discussion until he's taken his xanax and passed out sounds like a winning idea, though. thanks.

[bluenix]

>several times i advised him that i

>wasn't interested. i told him quite a few times that he should

>seek other amusements.

 

Gertrude said as much about her second marriage.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Cookies and Cream

 

I have accepted the fact that most of the states east of California rarely have any soy milk available (and if they do, it is one of the products made by Pepsi or Coke, which contains high fructose corn syrup). I do not eat cookies, not even fortune cookies.

 

While you, Lucky, might be able to find some very young men, far younger than you or I, who have the stamina to be available at any time or date you might desire, I prefer to both budget my resources and my schedule so I can take time off. While some of the Republican, pro-business compatriots among the clients might believe in working someone as many hours as possible, I would hope you would believe that taking some time off is both a benefit to the worker and those who would engage him.

 

Finally, I do not have any specific requests as to bedding, as clients who have actually hired me would be certain to tell you.

[theDCeBOY]

so, we're all basically agreed that the guy was a wash from the beginning & no amount of work or effort on my part would have transformed the situation into something that would have worked?

 

i get these sort of inquiries periodically. i tend to decline them, but i've always wondered if it would be possible to approach them in a way that allows them to be "good business" while also limiting the possible negative effects.

 

thanks to everyone who posted a comment. keep them coming if anyone has anything to add.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Cookies and Cream

 

Franco,

 

Not to hijack the thread, , but apparently you have not been to Georgia lately. Soy milk is EVERYWHERE. At my local Publix, you can get about 30 different brands of soymilk, in assorted flavors. You can even get it cold! Publix also has a store brand now called Greenwise, that is very good. None of it is made by Coke or Pepsi. You need to get out more

[BewareofNick]

Isn't it Oren? That name just kind of popped in my head.

[Guest Yog-Sothoth]

> The only long exchanges that I have ever had with escorts

>have been due to advance scheduling issues which as I have

>said elsewhere, I don't agree with anyway.

 

Your lost is others' gain.

[Doug69]

>i get these sort of inquiries periodically. i tend to decline

>them, but i've always wondered if it would be possible to

>approach them in a way that allows them to be "good business"

>while also limiting the possible negative effects.

 

If you listen to the overly-cautious Mother Hens and zelously-anti-drug Nancy Reagans of the world, you will get bad very business advice. They're just projecting their own tastes and fears onto you and the question you raised.

 

Are some guys who are high on crystal totally unreliable, annoying assholes with disgusting, draining behavior that's not worth dealing with them, no matter they pay? Absoultely. But that's true for LOTS of guy who are NOT on crystal.

 

But lots of guys who take crystal recreationally just love sex and want to have intense experiences and are willing to pay ALOT for it - exactly the kind of customer, given the business you're in, that I would think you would want to have. Having some per se prohibition on tweakers is irrational and likely to cost you lots and lots of money for no good reason.

 

Casino owners love gambling addicts. Restaurant owners love obese people who can't stop eating. Lawyers love people who are excessively litigious and sue everyeone. And - as an escort - you should LOVE guys craving sex badly even if it's because they're tweaking - provided, as is true with all of those other business transactions, the customer's behavior isn't so unreliable, demanding draining and unreasonable that it's not worth it.

 

I didn't see anything particularly unreasonable in those e-mails - just a guy who was SUPER horny due to the crystal, being eager to pay a high price for you to come there. The more someone wants a something, the more they'll pay for it. He was obviously super enamored of your cock and wanted it, and was willing to pay for it Why not take advantage of that? That's your business model.

 

Like any business transaction, precautions are necessary. Lawyers, for instance, will demand a big retainer fee up front from clients they don't know and/or whose financial abilites may be in question or who seem generally unreliable, or they may refuse the client altogether if they're too unreliable and untrustworthy (although it takes ALOT for most lawyers to refuse paying clients). For big corporations or regular clients, by contrast, they won't demand a large retainer. So as long as you take the right precautions and he shows you the cash and pays upfront, what's to be afraid of?

 

I'll guarantee you that lots of your clients are - perhaps unbeknownst to you - drunk when you meet them, or filled with all sorts of prescription mind-altering drugs, or stoned or just mentally imbalanced. You shouldn't treat this any differently.

 

Our society has an absurdly irrational and hypocritical view of drug use. The Government proclaims some very awful and mind-altering durgs to perfectly acceptable, but others are satanic. It is all based on unreal hysteria and blindly submissive groupthink - that's what you're seeing in this thread. Those are not very advisable emotoins on which to base your business policies.

[woodlawn]

>But lots of guys who take crystal recreationally just love sex

>and want to have intense experiences and are willing to pay

>ALOT for it - exactly the kind of customer, given the business

>you're in, that I would think you would want to have.

 

Sounds like you're contending that clients who use meth are likely to pay more for the same services than others are. Or is it that they're likely to pay the same for services but hire more often? If neither is the case, they would seem no more desirable than any other client.

 

>Casino owners love gambling addicts. Restaurant owners love

>obese people who can't stop eating. Lawyers love people who

>are excessively litigious and sue everyeone.

 

In fact, none of those three statements is true. No one likes doing business with people who are compulsive, the one trait common to most addicts, because such people always cause problems of one sort or another for those around them. Casinos don't want people who will bet their last dime because they don't want to deal with the fallout from such people or their families when they hit bottom. No restaurant wants vastly obese people sitting at a table where other patrons can see them, since they discourage others from eating. And no lawyer wants to be involved in frivolous suits because courts frequently impose sanctions on lawyers who do that repeatedly.

 

 

>And - as an

>escort - you should LOVE guys craving sex badly even if it's

>because they're tweaking - provided, as is true with all of

>those other business transactions, the customer's behavior

>isn't so unreliable, demanding draining and unreasonable that

>it's not worth it.

 

In other words, addicts are great to have as customers, provided that they don't behave like addicts. What terrific advice.

 

 

>So

>as long as you take the right precautions and he shows you the

>cash and pays upfront, what's to be afraid of?

 

Well, since meth addicts can exhibit manic or even paranoid behavior, I'd be afraid that someone who sounds perfectly reasonable on the phone would show up in that state. What precautions can one take against that? Have an armed bodyguard standing by to help throw the client out?

 

>I'll guarantee you that lots of your clients are - perhaps

>unbeknownst to you - drunk when you meet them, or filled with

>all sorts of prescription mind-altering drugs, or stoned or

>just mentally imbalanced.

 

No argument there -- it's one of the hazards of being a hooker. Problem is, there are no precautions one can take that will protect one from harm if and when such a client flips out.

 

 

>It is all based on unreal hysteria and blindly

>submissive groupthink

 

Nope. The dangers of meth are well documented, not theoretical or mythical. Does rejecting clients who use it mean you won't get others who have similar problems? No. Given the popularity of meth among gay men, does that policy mean you'll turn away more than a tiny number of clients? Yes. Will that policy decrease the chances that you'll find yourself with a client who exhibits extreme and uncontrollable behavior? It will. You simply have to decide how much that decreased risk is worth to you.

[Doug69]

>Sounds like you're contending that clients who use meth are

>likely to pay more for the same services than others are.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm contending, and that e-mail exchange he posted illustrates that. This is the case for 2 reasons:

 

(1) guys on crystal don't just like to have sex - they like to have sex for hours and hours and hours and hours - something guys on crystal couldn't and wouldn't do. Since escorts are paid by the hour, the fact that tweaking clients are more lucrative is self-evident;

 

(2) guys on crystal are way more eager for sex than guys who aren't, so they're definitely willing to pay more for it. It's a simple principle of economics: the more you want something - the more you crave it - the more you need it - the more you're willing to pay for it.

 

>Or

>In fact, none of those three statements is true. No one likes

>doing business with people who are compulsive, the one trait

>common to most addicts, because such people always cause

>problems of one sort or another for those around them.

>Casinos don't want people who will bet their last dime because

>they don't want to deal with the fallout from such people or

>their families when they hit bottom.

 

This just isn't so. Gambling addicts are treated like royalty at casinos - free suites, comp'd meals, whims satisfied. They like nothing more than people who sit there every week gambling away their paycheck.

 

If you told a casino owner not to allow gambling addicts into their establishment, they would assume you were joking.

 

>No restaurant wants

>vastly obese people sitting at a table where other patrons can

>see them, since they discourage others from eating.

 

If you ask restaurant owners whether they'd rather have a dining room full of fat people gorging themselves everynight, or an abandoned room with a smattering of thing people, do you really doubt what they'd choose?

And no

 

>lawyer wants to be involved in frivolous suits because courts

>frequently impose sanctions on lawyers who do that repeatedly.

 

Yes, this is true. I said that lawyers and everyone else will have limits on dealing with compulsive clients if it's not worth the pay. And clients who demand that frivolous suits be brought aren't worth it because of that risk.

 

But being litigious isn't the same as bringing frivolous suits. Most people encounter disputes that they resolve rather than filing what would be NON-frivolous suit. But litigious people will litigate disputes most people would prefer to resolve, and the suits aren't necessarily frivolous. Many lawyers love those clients - just as many escorts love clients with a similar hunger for sex.

 

>>And - as an

>>escort - you should LOVE guys craving sex badly even if it's

>>because they're tweaking - provided, as is true with all of

>>those other business transactions, the customer's behavior

>>isn't so unreliable, demanding draining and unreasonable

>that

>>it's not worth it.

>

>In other words, addicts are great to have as customers,

>provided that they don't behave like addicts. What terrific

>advice.

 

Let me share a little secret with you - not all people who consume alcohol are alcoholics. Identically, not all people who use crystal are drug addicts. Since people understand this dynamic when it comes to alcohol, why does this basic fact elude so many anti-drug hysterics?

 

Many people use crystal recreationally - a few times a year, once every couple months, etc. If you want to play semantic games and call them "addicts" anyway, go ahead, but they don't exhibit any behaviors which could even remotely be described as being "so unreliable, demanding draining and unreasonable that it's not worth it."

 

That's why telling escorts to avoid any client due to crystal use per se, no matter how much money they can make from such business, is wildly irrational.

 

>Well, since meth addicts can exhibit manic or even paranoid

>behavior, I'd be afraid that someone who sounds perfectly

>reasonable on the phone would show up in that state. What

>precautions can one take against that? Have an armed

>bodyguard standing by to help throw the client out?

 

Again, you are equating crystal users with crystal addicts, which is a glaring fallacy. Why are you doing that? If you see someone having a drink in a restaurant, do you assume that they spend every night in drunken rampages throwing things at family members and puking themselves to sleep?

 

>>It is all based on unreal hysteria and blindly

>>submissive groupthink

>

>Nope. The dangers of meth are well documented, not

>theoretical or mythical.

 

So are the dangers of alcohol and lots of perscription drugs, but nobody would advise an escort to avoid clients who take these.

 

And most of the most behavioral problems of violence or paranoia come from prolonged crystal binges lasting multiple days, and such a person is easily recognizable and nowhere near as cogent as the person in his e-mail was.

 

Most people prone to such violent outbursts are people not on crystal who have with mental disorders which probably aren't easily spotted.

 

>Will that policy decrease the chances that you'll find

>yourself with a client who exhibits extreme and uncontrollable

>behavior? It will. You simply have to decide how much that

>decreased risk is worth to you.

 

Getting out of bed is a "risk". Meeting up on a sex hookup with someone you don't know is a "risk." When a lawyer takes on a new client, it's a "risk." The point is that, compared to the risks one generally takes, particularly an escort, there is no measurably increased risk from meeting clients merely because they are using crystal. To shrilly advise clients that they should forego the substantial economic advantages to do so, then, is objectively irrational.

>

[woodlawn]

>>Sounds like you're contending that clients who use meth are

>>likely to pay more for the same services than others are.

 

>Yes, that's exactly what I'm contending, and that e-mail

>exchange he posted illustrates that.

 

I think it illustrates that the guy he was talking to was willing to OFFER more, not that he was willing to PAY more. Ethan and several other posters all made the point that meth users often "forget" to pay.

 

 

>This just isn't so. Gambling addicts are treated like royalty

>at casinos - free suites, comp'd meals, whims satisfied. They

>like nothing more than people who sit there every week

>gambling away their paycheck.

 

That's completely false. The gaming industry actually supports legislation that limits the amount players can wager on certain games precisely because it isn't in their interest to have a large number of clients who lose all they have in their establishments.

 

Your first sentence seems to refer to "whales," wealthy gamblers who can be relied on to wager huge sums during their periodic visits. But those people aren't "gambling addicts." Why do you confuse the two?

 

>If you told a casino owner not to allow gambling addicts into

>their establishment, they would assume you were joking.

 

No, they wouldn't. And since you've never even met anyone who owns a casino, you'd have no way of knowing that.

 

 

>If you ask restaurant owners whether they'd rather have a

>dining room full of fat people gorging themselves everynight,

>or an abandoned room with a smattering of thing people, do you

>really doubt what they'd choose?

 

 

That's a remarkably silly question, since the choice it presents does not exist in the real world. Restauranteurs -- and if you knew any, you'd know this -- don't get to choose between a room full of fat people and an empty room. They're aware that most of their patrons are neither fat nor thin, and that most would be turned off by the sight of an immensely fat person gorging himself at a nearby table.

 

>But

>litigious people will litigate disputes most people would

>prefer to resolve, and the suits aren't necessarily frivolous.

> Many lawyers love those clients -

 

If a person brings lawsuits frequently, I'd say he is either remarkably unlucky or bringing a certain number of frivolous suits. If he doesn't bring lawsuits frequently, I don't see why he would be any more desirable as a client than any other person.

 

 

>>In other words, addicts are great to have as customers,

>>provided that they don't behave like addicts. What terrific

>>advice.

 

>Let me share a little secret with you - not all people who

>consume alcohol are alcoholics.

 

Actually, I had already heard that.

 

>Identically, not all people

>who use crystal are drug addicts.

 

That I am not so sure about.

 

>Since people understand

>this dynamic when it comes to alcohol, why does this basic

>fact elude so many anti-drug hysterics?

 

I suspect it's because alcohol and meth are completely different substances with completely different effects on the human nervous system. That undeniable fact is what makes it so ridiculous to say that if one substance has certain characteristics, then the other must also. Which is exactly what you're saying.

 

 

>Many people use crystal recreationally - a few times a year,

 

This wouldn't be the first time you've made a statement that is unproven and probably unprovable and then ridiculed others because they refuse to take your unsupported word that it is a fact. Would it? No, it wouldn't.

 

 

>once every couple months, etc. If you want to play semantic

>games and call them "addicts" anyway, go ahead, but they don't

>exhibit any behaviors which could even remotely be described

>as being "so unreliable,

 

Once again, you assert as a fact something that you can't possibly know, then use it as the whole basis of your argument. Have other people really let you get away with shit like that in the past? Goodness!

 

 

>That's why telling escorts to avoid any client due to crystal

>use per se, no matter how much money they can make from such

>business, is wildly irrational.

 

No, it's perfectly rational. I think you should look up the word "irrational." I think you have forgotten what it means.

 

 

>>Well, since meth addicts can exhibit manic or even paranoid

>>behavior, I'd be afraid that someone who sounds perfectly

>>reasonable on the phone would show up in that state. What

>>precautions can one take against that? Have an armed

>>bodyguard standing by to help throw the client out?

 

>Again, you are equating crystal users with crystal addicts,

>which is a glaring fallacy. Why are you doing that?

 

Because it is not a fallacy, glaring or otherwise.

 

 

>

If you

>see someone having a drink in a restaurant, do you assume that

>they spend every night in drunken rampages throwing things at

>family members and puking themselves to sleep?

 

 

Since alcohol and meth have nothing in common with each other, how in the world could that question have any relevance to this discussion?

 

 

>So are the dangers of alcohol and lots of perscription drugs,

>but nobody would advise an escort to avoid clients who take

>these.

 

Once again, you mention things completely different than the substance we're discussing and insist that because one has certain characteristics, so must the other. I wonder what sort of crowd you hang out with who let you get away with that.

 

 

>And most of the most behavioral problems of violence or

>paranoia come from prolonged crystal binges lasting multiple

>days, and such a person is easily recognizable and nowhere

>near as cogent as the person in his e-mail was.

 

I have some serious doubts about whether you have the qualifications necessary to diagnose the severity of a substance abuse problem by reading a couple of emails from someone you've never even met. In fact, I doubt anyone is capable of that.

 

>>Will that policy decrease the chances that you'll find

>>yourself with a client who exhibits extreme and

>uncontrollable

>>behavior? It will. You simply have to decide how much that

>>decreased risk is worth to you.

 

>Getting out of bed is a "risk".

 

You know, it always amuses me the way people here respond to discussions about the dangers of HIV infection or dealing with drug addicts by saying nonsense like "Well, you could get killed crossing the street," or "Getting out of bed is a risk." As if putting your feet on the floor of your own bedroom presented a risk in any way comparable to barebacking with a gay man who has numerous sex partners or allowing yourself to be alone with a stranger about whom you know absolutely nothing other than that he uses drugs. I find it very, very funny.

 

>Meeting up on a sex hookup

>with someone you don't know is a "risk."

 

Indeed it is. That's what makes the use of quotation marks around the word above so inappropriate.

 

>The point is that, compared

>to the risks one generally takes, particularly an escort,

>there is no measurably increased risk from meeting clients

>merely because they are using crystal.

 

 

Of course there is. The chances one will meet up with a dangerous meth addict are vastly decreased -- in fact, eliminated -- if one refuses all clients who use meth.

 

> To shrilly advise

>clients that they should forego the substantial economic

>advantages to do so, then, is objectively irrational.

 

Making up shit like the above and insisting we all treat it as a "fact" just doesn't work around here. Someone is bound to ask, for example, what basis you have for saying that the escort is foregoing "substantial economic advantages" by refusing meth users. And if they ask that question you will not be able to answer, because you have no real basis for saying that. It's just an assumption you've made from a tiny amount of anecdotal evidence.

[Doug69]

>>Yes, that's exactly what I'm contending, and that e-mail

>>exchange he posted illustrates that.

>

>I think it illustrates that the guy he was talking to was

>willing to OFFER more, not that he was willing to PAY more.

>Ethan and several other posters all made the point that meth

>users often "forget" to pay.

 

As you would say, what's their empirical evidence for the claim that tweakers "often" don't pay? Since they cited no empirical evidecne, and it's presumably based on a "tiny sampling" of anecdotal evidence only, why did you choose to believe the claim - when you so frequently reject a contention because it's based only on anecdotal evidence?

 

Unlike you, most people trust their personal experiences to inform their views of the world, and don't need a magazine or a self-labelled "expert" to tell them that they are right.

 

The fact that tweakers are so desperate for sex, and so indifferent to practical things such as money or time, and will therefore part with a lot more money for escorts than will non-tweakers, is - if you have a modicum of experience in the world - so self-evident that it's hard to believe anyone disptues it. If you need to read something first in the New England Journal of Medicine before you recognize it or anything else as true, that's your choice - a sad choice, but still your choice.

 

>>Identically, not all people

>>who use crystal are drug addicts.

>

>That I am not so sure about.

 

Neither is Nancy Reagan. You two share the same view on this issue. Do you have any empirical evidence or studies to support your facially ludicrious view that anyone who has ever taken crystal meth a single time is an "addict"?

 

Do you really not know anyone who has taken crystal before but isn't a depraved addict? Do you ever leave your house?

 

>>Again, you are equating crystal users with crystal addicts,

>>which is a glaring fallacy. Why are you doing that?

>

>Because it is not a fallacy, glaring or otherwise.

 

I supppose if you assume - as you, amazingly, do - that every person who is taking crystal at any given moment is, by definition, not just a crystal user, but a crystal ADDICT (since, astoundingly, you recognize no distinction), then I see why you think the way you do. It's the same reason that I said your view was irrational.

 

>>The point is that, compared

>>to the risks one generally takes, particularly an escort,

>>there is no measurably increased risk from meeting clients

>>merely because they are using crystal.

>

>Of course there is. The chances one will meet up with a

>dangerous meth addict are vastly decreased -- in fact,

>eliminated -- if one refuses all clients who use meth.

 

"Dangerous meth addict" - LOL!!! - you should write soap opera scripts with those evil villinous characters - or, better yet, do voice overs for the Government's anti-drug ads. You'd be great. In fact, you'd be great for any ad that warns people in frightening and condemning tones of the grave dangers of doing anything other than sitting at home under the covers - especially if the activity in question involves sex.

 

With safeguards, escorts can make lots and lots of money from sexually hungry, eager guys using crystal. I'm sure escorts meet tweakers all the time and don't even realize it. While one needs caution in such transactions, one needs caution with all transactions, which certainly includes escorting transactions.

 

To forego those financial rewards based upon the fears and condemnations of people in this forum, who are most petrified of life than any old woman I know, is an incredibly bad business decision.

 

To the DC escort who started this thread: I would strongly suggest, before making any decisions, that you talk to other escorts about the great fianncial benefits to be gained from fucking tweaking clients, and the safeguards you should use to minimize the waste of time.

 

Asking the question you asked in this forum is like going into a convent and asking whether or not you should suck cock or, for that matter, masturbate. The very words horrify them and causes them to cover their mouth with shame and fear.

[axebahia]

>Your lost is others' gain.

 

What have I lost? What have they gained? I avoid a pointless waste of my time, and potentially legally dangerous exchanges in writing. Sounds like my gain is someone else's loss. As for advance booking, my only experience doing that with Arnaud of Amsterdam, a ticketron escort with overly-hyped reviews here and elsewhere was underwhelming. It gave me a real insight into the particular clients and escorts in that market segment. Let's just say, thankfully I don't yet fit into that client demographic group!

[woodlawn]

>>Ethan and several other posters all made the point that meth

>>users often "forget" to pay.

 

>As you would say, what's their empirical evidence for the

>claim that tweakers "often" don't pay? Since they cited no

>empirical evidecne, and it's presumably based on a "tiny

>sampling" of anecdotal evidence only, why did you choose to

>believe the claim - when you so frequently reject a contention

>because it's based only on anecdotal evidence?

 

>Unlike you, most people trust their personal experiences

 

YOU are one of the people who is always claiming that a statement based on a tiny sampling of anecdotal evidence is sufficient to prove the points you make. Your statement above that "most people" make decisions based on their personal experiences is a good example of that. But on this point you are taking the opposite position by saying that Eth shouldn't trust HIS personal experience with tweakers. Why?

 

>The fact that tweakers are so desperate for sex, and so

>indifferent to practical things such as money or time, and

>will therefore part with a lot more money for escorts than

>will non-tweakers, is - if you have a modicum of experience in

>the world - so self-evident that it's hard to believe anyone

>disptues it.

 

Hard as it may be for you to believe, I am not going to let you get away with insisting that statements for which you have no evidence other than your personal suppositions are "facts" that we must all accept for the purpose of these discussions. Every time you try to pull that shit with me I will point out what a sham it is. The truth is, you have no real basis for the statements you keep making about how meth users behave as clients.

 

 

>If you need to read something first in the New

>England Journal of Medicine before you recognize it or

>anything else as true, that's your choice

 

 

My choice is not to take your unsupported word on any issue whatsoever. Given your past behavior on this board I think it's a very wise choice. Nor am I the only person who thinks so, as you know.

 

 

>>That I am not so sure about.

 

>Neither is Nancy Reagan. You two share the same view on this

>issue.

 

So? Given your tendency to parrot the same lines Reagan used on many issues when he was in office, I would think Nancy's opinion would carry plenty of weight with you.

 

 

>Do you have any empirical evidence or studies to

>support your facially ludicrious view that anyone who has ever

>taken crystal meth a single time is an "addict"?

 

I have plenty of evidence that I never made the statement you accuse me of making in the sentence above -- you can't find such a statement in any post of mine in this thread or elsewhere. Which means you are reverting to your old tactic of making up some shit and insulting another poster for "saying" it. It won't work.

 

 

>Do you really not know anyone who has taken crystal before but

>isn't a depraved addict? Do you ever leave your house?

 

I can truthfully say that I tend to avoid users of meth and other illegal drugs -- that's because MY personal experience informs me that they have a tendency to fuck up anything they're involved in and splatter those around them with shit. My house is not in the sort of place where I need to worry about running into junkies whenever I leave it, I'm glad to say.

 

 

>>>Again, you are equating crystal users with crystal addicts,

>>>which is a glaring fallacy. Why are you doing that?

 

>>Because it is not a fallacy, glaring or otherwise.

 

>I supppose if you assume - as you, amazingly, do - that every

>person who is taking crystal at any given moment is, by

>definition, not just a crystal user, but a crystal ADDICT

 

Nope, never said any such thing. Again, you are making shit up and yelling at me for "saying" it. But in truth the person you are yelling at is yourself.

 

>>Of course there is. The chances one will meet up with a

>>dangerous meth addict are vastly decreased -- in fact,

>>eliminated -- if one refuses all clients who use meth.

 

>"Dangerous meth addict" - LOL!!! - you should write soap opera

>scripts

 

So you think the numerous acts of violence committed by meth addicts in this country each year are funny? If so, I can understand why you'd recommend to escorts that they see such people -- the results will provide more entertainment for you. Not for them, of course, but that's not your problem.

 

 

>With safeguards,

 

I already asked -- and you did not answer, but dodged the question -- what sort of "safeguards" a hooker can arrange that will protect him from finding himself alone with a meth user who flips out. Well?

 

 

>escorts can make lots and lots of money from

>sexually hungry, eager guys using crystal.

 

Again, that's a statement based on assumptions about the number of potential clients who use and the behavior of those clients, assumptions based on nothing much but your desire to win this argument and your anger at the fact that you live in a society that denigrates illegal drug users.

[Doug69]

>The truth is, you have no real basis for

>the statements you keep making about how meth users behave as

>clients.

 

I do have a basis. It's just not printed in Time Magazine or the other Bibles of Orthodox Conventional Truth that you need to see something in before you believing it to be true.

 

As I said, I encourage Ethan to talk with his fellow escorts - not publicly in this forum where most escorts are posing as fictious genetlemanly characters designed to attract clients and thus can't speak freely and would certainly never admit to the great financial rewards to be earned from fucking hungry tweakers - but to real escorts speaking candidly in private. I am confident he will learn a great deal about the ways he can reap great financial rewards from plugging the holes of meth'd up clients willing and eager to part with huge amounts of cash in order to be fucked for hours and hours.

 

>My choice is not to take your unsupported word on any issue

>whatsoever. Given your past behavior on this board I think

>it's a very wise choice. Nor am I the only person who thinks

>so, as you know.

 

I don't think it's particularly smart of you to cite the opinions of the posters here as being authoritative when it comes to the character and integrity of others. I can't even count the number of posters here who have, with great intensity and regularity, expressed their unbridled contempt for everything about you. It's rare for a week to guy by here without seeing festivals of hatred expressed towards you by the many of the members here. Do you just skip over those posts?

 

>>Do you have any empirical evidence or studies to

>>support your facially ludicrious view that anyone who has

>ever

>>taken crystal meth a single time is an "addict"?

>

>I have plenty of evidence that I never made the statement you

>accuse me of making in the sentence above -- you can't find

>such a statement in any post of mine in this thread or

>elsewhere. Which means you are reverting to your old tactic

>of making up some shit and insulting another poster for

>"saying" it. It won't work.

 

If you are denying - as you seem to be - that you equated "crystal users" with "crystal addicts," then - oh-so-shockingly - you are lying. Here's what you said:

 

<<ME: >Again, you are equating crystal users with crystal addicts,

>which is a glaring fallacy. Why are you doing that?

 

YOU: Because it is not a fallacy, glaring or otherwise.>>

 

I said that to equate "crystal users" with "cystal addict" is a fallacy. You said that equating those two things is NOT a fallacy. The only meaning possible from your words is that you think equating them is valid. So why did you deny that you equated them?

 

Additionally, when I said that it's possible for escorts to have as customers crystal USERS, as long as they don't act unreliably and unreasonably, you responded by saying that what this meant was that I was recommending that escorts see crystal addicts as long as they don't act like addicts, again equating cyrstal users with crystal addicts.

 

I don't blame you for trying to deny that you said this, but since you said it and it's recorded, that effort is likely to fail.

 

>I can truthfully say that I tend to avoid users of meth and

>other illegal drugs -- that's because MY personal experience

>informs me that they have a tendency to fuck up anything

>they're involved in and splatter those around them with shit.

 

Well, if you were able to form this opinion about meth users, then preumably you were around people who used meth at some point, otherwise you wouldn't know how they behave. Of all the people you've known you have used crystal, none have used it without becoming depraved addicts?

 

>So you think the numerous acts of violence committed by meth

>addicts in this country each year are funny?

 

No - what I think is funny is that with regard to almost every single activity that is ever discussed here - particularly (though not only) ones that involve sex - you prattle on endlessly about the risks and dangers of every activity. You are like one big walking WARNING! DANGER! sign. Every activity that is raised provokes in you fears and concerns and anxieties about the bad results that can come from such activities. You are consumed with worry and fear and anxiety. You see everything in terms of worst case scenario. You are petrified of life. That's what I find funny.

[woodlawn]

>>The truth is, you have no real basis for

>>the statements you keep making about how meth users behave

>as

>>clients.

 

>I do have a basis.

 

But you've decided you'd rather not tell us what it is. Very convincing.

 

 

>As I said, I encourage Ethan to talk with his fellow escorts -

>not publicly in this forum where most escorts are posing as

>fictious genetlemanly characters designed to attract clients

>and thus can't speak freely and would certainly never admit to

>the great financial rewards to be earned from fucking hungry

>tweakers - but to real escorts speaking candidly in private.

 

So you think the escorts who post here create bogus personalities and express bogus opinions in order to make themselves seem far more attractive to potential clients than they really are? Interesting idea.

 

 

>I am confident he will learn a great deal about the ways he

>can reap great financial rewards

 

And your confidence is based on . . . ? Unless you've done or read scientific research on the subject, the only way you could be confident of such a conclusion is if:

 

1. You yourself are a meth user and you are describing your own behavior; or

 

2. You know a large number of meth users who behave that way.

 

 

>I don't think it's particularly smart of you to cite the

>opinions of the posters here as being authoritative when it

>comes to the character and integrity of others. I can't even

>count the number of posters here who have, with great

>intensity and regularity, expressed their unbridled contempt

>for everything about you.

 

As a matter of fact there are a number of recent threads in the Lounge section all about me. I don't recall seeing many of the expressions of unbridled contempt you refer to. I think instead this is part of your pattern of telling lies in order to make your arguments seem far more compelling than they really are. It reminds of your constantly repeated statements that there are "many, many" HIV patients who are living normal, "healthy" lives and will continue to do so "indefinitely."

 

>It's rare for a week to guy by here

>without seeing festivals of hatred expressed towards you by

>the many of the members here. Do you just skip over those

>posts?

 

Now this is exactly the sort of lie you so often tell in order to buttress the flimsy nonsense you post here. Do you actually know other people who let you get away with making up shit instead of advancing real arguments in a discussion?

 

 

 

>>>Do you have any empirical evidence or studies to

>>>support your facially ludicrious view that anyone who has

>>ever

>>>taken crystal meth a single time is an "addict"?

 

 

>>I have plenty of evidence that I never made the statement

>you accuse me of making in the sentence above -- you can't find

>>such a statement in any post of mine

 

>If you are denying - as you seem to be - that you equated

>"crystal users" with "crystal addicts," then -

>oh-so-shockingly - you are lying.

 

No, I am not. The statement you claim I made is posted first above. In the sentence immediately above you make a different statement, which you claim is the same, and go on to assert it proves I made the first statement. Why tell such an obvious lie? Do you think no one here understands English?

 

 

>I said that to equate "crystal users" with "cystal addict" is

>a fallacy. You said that equating those two things is NOT a

>fallacy. The only meaning possible from your words is that

>you think equating them is valid. So why did you deny that

>you equated them?

 

I didn't deny making that statement. I denied making a different one, posted above. Is your English so poor you can't tell the difference between the two? I keep seeing newspaper articles about the deplorable state of education in this country. I suppose sooner or later I was bound to run across a real-life example of the problem.

 

>again

>equating cyrstal users with crystal addicts.

 

>I don't blame you for trying to deny that you said this, but

>since you said it and it's recorded, that effort is likely to

>fail.

 

The problem is not an inconsistency on my part, but your inability to understand the difference between two statements that have quite different meanings. If you study them awhile you'll probably figure it out.

 

>>I can truthfully say that I tend to avoid users of meth and

>>other illegal drugs -- that's because MY personal experience

>>informs me that they have a tendency to fuck up anything

>>they're involved in and splatter those around them with shit.

 

 

>Well, if you were able to form this opinion about meth users,

>then preumably you were around people who used meth at some

>point, otherwise you wouldn't know how they behave. Of all

>the people you've known you have used crystal, none have used

>it without becoming depraved addicts?

 

The word "depraved" is a moral term. My objections to sharing the company of junkies are practical, not moral.

 

It does surprise me that someone like you, who agrees with the opinions of Ronald Reagan on so many issues of public policy, has such a disagreement with dear old Ronnie on this one issue.

 

 

>>So you think the numerous acts of violence committed by meth

>>addicts in this country each year are funny?

 

>You are consumed with worry and fear and anxiety.

> You see everything in terms of worst case scenario. You are

>petrified of life. That's what I find funny.

 

I'm sorry to find even more evidence that you are another one of the deluded idiots here who imagines that he has the ability to psychoanalyze people he's never even met, when the truth is he doesn't even possess the ability to apply a bandaid successfully.