Doubles? I don't get the economic

The most incredible doubles team I ever had the pleasure of experiencing was with MSB and HH. They were both $200/hr but $300 for doubles. Those economics made sense to me.

I have made the mistake of seeing others for doubles where the rate was the standard hourly rate X 2. Yes doubles are fun; BUT, in hindsight one hour with each lady for the same price would have been must more enjoyable.

Not that we can ever make any sense of Hooker Math, but what do you think? Originally Posted by CivilBarrister

Agree. Any time I have done a 4 hands sesh with another lady, it was our two hourly rates, discounted. As you said, seems weird to me to charge double.

Threesomes both in and out of the hobby are something that is often better in theory than in practice.

In the hobby, I've found that many providers are more inhibited with another in the room, especially massage providers. And CB raises a very good point - on a limited hobby budget, I'd rather do two one-on-one sessions than one double.

That being said, I have had some spectacular doubles sessions. But I've had more disappointments. YMMV goes (wait for it) double here.

It is what it is. Funny how the economics always dont make sense when is not favourable to us.

Providers are selling a fantasy, being with two girls at once is a special fantasy, cant get all the providers to do that. Being with two girls at once that are into each other is even a more special fantasy. Your market for that is even smaller.

I have been in countries were the rate for a threesome is higher than the combined rate of having each provider separate. The lesbian experience not included. There is an additional premium for that.

Still think the economics we have in Houston dont make sense?

Doubles can be fun or a train wreck. In general each gal in a double session will do less work than she would have had to do if she was solo. Having to pay each gals normal solo rate for a double session doesn't make good economic sense. Trying to apply sense to the hobby rarely pans out though.

According to the movie Officespace I think it's one million dollars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A939QRRSNV4

Doubles for $300 if both girls rates are $150 sounds fine. I double with Glynette (which we have a done double specials for $200 before) and Adorna Kisses in which we go half $250 each. Each girl has to break even off her rate. That's my logic behind it. Ijs.

I agree that if the girls are into each other it is more of a porn experience---but WATCHING 2 girls get it on and then being "left out" is even worse.
Yep, sitting there strokin it when you are payin...just isn't right.
I am sure I will do more doubles, but The moon and stars have to align first.

And Don T - of course nothing in this Hobby world makes sense, but ... Originally Posted by CivilBarrister

You as the purchaser bring the "sense" and dollars to the Hobby...use them appropriately.
We all know you do not "Get what you pay for"
But...you can "pay for what you get".

Doubles can be fun or a train wreck. In general each gal in a double session will do less work than she would have had to do if she was solo. Having to pay each gals normal solo rate for a double session doesn't make good economic sense. Trying to apply sense to the hobby rarely pans out though.
Very good point about the actual work each girl would need to do in a 2 on 1. So prices should be adjusted appropriately.
There are, of course, "situation"...such as the "Tails of Two Sisters"...it may cost more for "sisters", twins or such.

But in general, you are purchasing...make it plain what you want before the deal begins.
Originally Posted by oilfieldscum

Just my $0.02
L8r
r9

To me, the biggest problem with doubles is how to allocate the one shot I usually can fire in an hour. I've done doubles in the real world and that has always provided enough time for everyone to get theirs. With providers - only once, but it was with sisters, so that made it worthwhile. Otherwise, I'd think I'd rather do two separate sessions. For me, that's better bang for the buck.