Another NPOA thread

Personally I don't think you can put a price on a human. . . . We are all worth more than any amount of money on this earth. Originally Posted by Eccie Addict

*sigh* That's the problem with NPOA discussions. They're not really about a person's intrinsic worth, they're about the value to the prospective buyer of a service/experience. The former is a rhetorical strawman, useful for arguing but not for discussing.

If there is a lady out there I want to see and whatever she has chosen she is worth then I will gladly pay it if I can. Originally Posted by Eccie Addict

And that last highlighted part is the crux of the issue, although somewhat simplified. There is an upper limit for each of us beyond which we won't go. What I "can" spend depends on how much money: (a) I have easy access to; (b) without too much risk of being detected by my wife; (c) without sacrificing our standard of living; (d) without significantly affecting retirement security; etc., etc. And it's also tied in to frequency. Hell, I "can" see a lady who charges $50,000 for a date; I would just have to stop seeing anyone else for a few years while I saved up the money. But, particularly since P4P is my only sexual outlet, going a few years without sex would be a significant sacrifice.

Not to mention that "want to see" is not a binary yes/no quality either. How much do I want to see her? I have spent time with one or two ladies whose company I enjoyed so much that, yes, if her rates were such that I could only see her every six weeks or so, and would have to give up seeing anyone else, I can imagine making that trade-off. (In fact, I may be reaching that point soon.) But the acceptable trade-off would be much different for other ladies, even though I enjoy seeing them as well. Of course, "NPOA" implies only that there is at least one lady for whom you would pay that upper limit, not that you would pay it for others.

All of this is hypothetical, and may be affected by imagination as well. The only way to know for sure, I guess, is when your favorite lady raises her rates; if you swallow and still see her, you haven't passed the "NPOA" limit; if you stop seeing her, you have. There are some ladies I may decide against seeing at their rates, but I've never stopped seeing an ATF because of her rate. That doesn't mean there isn't a limit, just that I don't know how I would react to a hypothetical rate that hasn't happened yet. I might think "I wouldn't go above $X" but until I'm faced with that situation, I don't know for sure. And even then, I'm limited to my imagination concerning ladies whom I've not yet seen. There's at least one case I can think of where I almost certainly would not have paid her current rate to see her the first time (at a lower rate), before I discovered how fantastic she really is.

Some people have simple, straight-forward cut-offs of how much they will spend. I don't; it's pretty much ad hoc. But, yes, there are limits.

And that last highlighted part is the crux of the issue, although somewhat simplified. There is an upper limit for each of us beyond which we won't go. What I "can" spend depends on how much money: (a) I have easy access to; (b) without too much risk of being detected by my wife; (c) without sacrificing our standard of living; (d) without significantly affecting retirement security; etc., etc. And it's also tied in to frequency. Hell, I "can" see a lady who charges $50,000 for a date; I would just have to stop seeing anyone else for a few years while I saved up the money. But, particularly since P4P is my only sexual outlet, going a few years without sex would be a significant sacrifice. Originally Posted by Chevalier

And build up and wait, the lady in question could be the second coming of Venus and she would probably still be a disappointment.

Chevalier- I can understand what you mean by these discussions not really being about a person's worth however it's doesn't really matter how they are meant as much as how they perceive it. Saying to a woman "NPOA is worth" is no different than saying "you aren't worth"... That piece of ass is connected to a woman

Chevalier- I can understand what you mean by these discussions not really being about a person's worth however it's doesn't really matter how they are meant as much as how they perceive it. Saying to a woman "NPOA is worth" is no different than saying "you aren't worth"... That piece of ass is connected to a woman Originally Posted by Eccie Addict

I agree. BIG kiss for you EA!

Big Hugs EA!
....I mean ..damn you really want that discount huh?




We do not. Well, ...London does. You should hear her after a tour. Originally Posted by Naomi4u

You hush your mouth lol. I really don't complain much about the southern states...men seem to behave, shower, and tip.

As for NOPA...that will ALWAYS depend on the spender. Some guys don't blink at a few grand, while others b3tch about anything over $250.

Chevalier- I can understand what you mean by these discussions not really being about a person's worth however it's doesn't really matter how they are meant as much as how they perceive it. Saying to a woman "NPOA is worth" is no different than saying "you aren't worth"... That piece of ass is connected to a woman Originally Posted by Eccie Addict

I agree with Chevalier on this point: it's not about the intrinsic value of a human being, but rather, about the service. If it were about the intrinsic value of a human being, there is no way corporations could put a price on the salaries of middle managers.

*sigh* That's the problem with NPOA discussions. They're not really about a person's intrinsic worth, they're about the value to the prospective buyer of a service/experience. The former is a rhetorical strawman, useful for arguing but not for discussing.

And that last highlighted part is the crux of the issue, although somewhat simplified. There is an upper limit for each of us beyond which we won't go. What I "can" spend depends on how much money: (a) I have easy access to; (b) without too much risk of being detected by my wife; (c) without sacrificing our standard of living; (d) without significantly affecting retirement security; etc., etc. And it's also tied in to frequency. Hell, I "can" see a lady who charges $50,000 for a date; I would just have to stop seeing anyone else for a few years while I saved up the money. But, particularly since P4P is my only sexual outlet, going a few years without sex would be a significant sacrifice.

Not to mention that "want to see" is not a binary yes/no quality either. How much do I want to see her? I have spent time with one or two ladies whose company I enjoyed so much that, yes, if her rates were such that I could only see her every six weeks or so, and would have to give up seeing anyone else, I can imagine making that trade-off. (In fact, I may be reaching that point soon.) But the acceptable trade-off would be much different for other ladies, even though I enjoy seeing them as well. Of course, "NPOA" implies only that there is at least one lady for whom you would pay that upper limit, not that you would pay it for others.

All of this is hypothetical, and may be affected by imagination as well. The only way to know for sure, I guess, is when your favorite lady raises her rates; if you swallow and still see her, you haven't passed the "NPOA" limit; if you stop seeing her, you have. There are some ladies I may decide against seeing at their rates, but I've never stopped seeing an ATF because of her rate. That doesn't mean there isn't a limit, just that I don't know how I would react to a hypothetical rate that hasn't happened yet. I might think "I wouldn't go above $X" but until I'm faced with that situation, I don't know for sure. And even then, I'm limited to my imagination concerning ladies whom I've not yet seen. There's at least one case I can think of where I almost certainly would not have paid her current rate to see her the first time (at a lower rate), before I discovered how fantastic she really is.

Some people have simple, straight-forward cut-offs of how much they will spend. I don't; it's pretty much ad hoc. But, yes, there are limits. Originally Posted by Chevalier

I think this is the reason that a lot of ladies "grandfather" rates (in some cases it is a literal appellation). They fear the reality of surging past a client's/regular's price point.

I have no rates to grandfather, but I do tend to give my regulars extra time OTC. The ONLY thing I will never negotiate is my min. whether locally or touring. I have reasons for setting my min. at different price points.

As for NOPA...that will ALWAYS depend on the spender. Some guys don't blink at a few grand, while others b3tch about anything over $250. Originally Posted by London Rayne

But, London, some of us feel a pinch at $50 - $100.

Then you my friend, need a Lot Lizard....lmao.

Then you my friend, need a Lot Lizard....lmao. Originally Posted by London Rayne

The ONLY thing I will never negotiate is my min. whether locally or touring. Originally Posted by London Rayne

Does this mean that everything else is open to negotiation? Because I thought nothing was open to negotiation.

Then you my friend, need a Lot Lizard....lmao. Originally Posted by London Rayne

Hey, it might be more successful than what I've had. You wanting to apply for the position?

Hey, it might be more successful than what I've had. You wanting to apply for the position? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Don't know about London but I think I have a recommendation. She's in Texas too .

Most guys will complain that some of us are too high. They'll raise hell and go and see the $100 girl expecting to get more for their money only to leave the appointment disappointed. Do men really expect "Greek", "Msog", "bbbjcim". for $100...? Does this happen? Just a question Charles.

Wait a minute? You mean grandfathers get cheaper rates? I better borrow some baby pictures.

Hey, it might be more successful than what I've had. You wanting to apply for the position? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

That would be one hell of a tag for a truck stop appearance.

PJ if all grandpas got special rates, we would all be in the poor house.