Very true, but if you're a woman who claims to never see more than one guy a day, what money are you "missing" by going to dinner with your ONLY client that day? Heh....
I can AFFORD to go to dinner off the clock, because I don't work every day, or even every week...my post count on 3 boards proves that, but not all women have that luxury. Some of them have to actually fly out of town to work, so they have to charge a fee that covers all of that.
Some women actually do have to see 2-3 guys a day, 5 days a week, so for them, you're correct...they lose money by giving their time away, because they probably have another dude coming in an hour.
I have 2 dinner rates listed, but if I am being honest, I only charge for that dinner when I am out of town...why? Because I had to pay for a hotel and a flight. At home, I use incalls that are being paid for regardless, and I don't see but 1-2 guys a week. Why not have dinner after?
If I were a hooker or a courtesan or escort or workin' girl, I wouldn't be shy about collecting something less than my full rate for dinner. That is time I could spend with some other client at the full rate. So, the loss of income component would justify 200 for dinner versus 300 for a full session.
At the end of the day, it is a free market. Willing buyer and willing seller. I've paid for dinner before and wouldn't ask without first offering approx 2/3 the rate for a full session.
Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer