Not entirely true. I have spent entire weekends with "low volume" providers. I regularly spend entire days with "low volume" providers. I have picked up "low volume" providers from college (although they may have certainly had sex at college, but I'm assuming it would not be numerous people) and spent the entire evening with them. I mainly see girls who do not advertise anywhere. Very UTR and very low volume. So yes, I think in these circumstances I can assume they are low volume. I am not so naive to believe that I am the only person they see, but I do believe (and in some instances, know) that I am often the only person they see in a given day.That's all fine and dandy, however, it really makes no difference where you pick these gals up at nor does it matter how long your dates are, whether they're multi-hour dates, whether they're your UTR-Elites, or whether you have a go-fast boat, ...it really doesn't matter. All that means is that when they are with you, they're not with someone else
When I see a more traditional provider, I am well aware that there is no way to know how many clients they have seen, and I have definitely seen some providers who had seen several clients before me. The biggest complaint in those instances is not that they are nasty, as they have usually cleaned up. My complaint is the provider is worn out and just doesn't put her best effort into it. It is definitely more of going through the motions. This is a major turn-off for me. Originally Posted by Molay
Don't ever forget that these providers, especially the GFE-variety providers, are selling an illusion. The really good ones do so effortlessly and convincingly. They're conditioned to keep the entire truth from coming to light because that's bad for business.
I will stand behind what I stated, "you have no way of knowing (for certain) how "low-volume" they actually are", and your assumptions prove it.
Believe whatever you will, proof is reality and assumptions are guesses at best.
--
Fun Fact of the day:
Bill Gates earns about $250 USD every second.
.
.