Exclusivity/ monogamy contracts

[ChloeSummers]

I have to disagree with you on a few levels there.

One, feelings do happen in the industry and it goes on both ends, for escorts and for clients. It's cool you haven't experienced that, but your experience is not everyone else's.

Two, I can't speak for everyone on this thread, but I can say that It's certainly not me. I was watching a documentary and got curious.
There is a lot that is unknown about the habits/ desires/ needs/ and even thoughts of people in this industry.

 

[ChloeSummers]

That's good to know, thanks
I personally am not in a time or place to be exclusive. So it's just interesting if people do decide to commit, do they do it in this industry? How did arrangements happen? Was it still considered an Sp/ client relationship or were the lines really blurred?

Come on, hearing these stories is far more interesting from the mouths of clients than documentaries that are often overly dramatized and from people judging the industry, rather than living it. ( sentence meant for anyone reading thread).

Interesting. So do you feel this way about monogamy in general, or is it specific to an SP/Client relationship? If you could provide all the means for the Sp, then would ti still be intrusive and egoistic if mutually agreed upon?

 

[ChloeSummers]

Interesting. So it is more common than I thought. Though still a rare thing. I was wondering if it was even existent at all. Thanks

Exclusivity Arrangements exist in both the SB and SP world. Some SBs/SPs openly advertise it, while the vast majority do not but are open to the idea of it.

Most SPs don't consider it being an option because of their current clientele. I've had SPs tell me that even booking them for 1.5 hours is a rarity, most people book 30/45/60 minutes only.

I imagine the high end SPs ($300-500/hour) get offered exclusivity a lot more often simply because those clients have the coin for it. Exclusivity doesn't come cheap and it's not 24/7 either, she'll be exclusive to you but she'll still have her civvie life obligations to deal with (work, family, etc).

Exclusivity usually comes at 2 prices, evenings + weekends for a month or 24/7 for a month. It's an arrangement so it has to be discussed, as Chloe stated, it's the opportunity cost of seeing you only.

Based on the discussion in my Sugar Baby thread, I'm going to say less than 5% of TERB are interested in exclusivity.

 

[ChloeSummers]

From a legal perspective, unenforceable.

Yeah, I felt as though contracts would have to be drafted up.

 

[ChloeSummers]

Well put

 

[ChloeSummers]

Well put

Not at all. Some people search for different things that's all. What fulfills you isn't the same for another gentleman and that's okay.

Some people don't even like intercourse or can't perform to completion and look for other ways to fill that void through companionship. It isn't entirely about the physical for some or about "scoring". There are different forms of intimacy that some men search for and this train of thinking is quite prevalent with these arrangements. It's often the reason for it.

Remember some guys are cool with routine. They don't need variety. You see that on here too when people talk about sticking with their 1-2 regulars over trying something new. The great thing about these things are that it isn't permanent. This isn't a marriage and you can break free whenever you like.

 

[Caelus]

feelings. lol come on man. its only about the money. stop trying to make these dudes feel like theres something more there. and of course guys would pay for exclusivity and they expect both parties to be tested and they would expect no condoms. thats the point of exclusivity and the higher payment. im getting a vibe from this thread that someone is fishing for a sucker to fall in love and pay a huge guaranteed sum every month

^^^^^^^ +1 for this

 

[doggystyle99]

One time I was approach by a woman who wanted something like you are talking about. She wanted all expenses paid, and to be harboured in one of the most expensive places around plus $40000/month. All for exclusivity. Why anyone whould do that is beyond me.

I once brought up an sp from San Diego. She advertised $12,500/day minimum 2 days, or $25,000. I had her for half of Friday , and the weekend and we negotiated $30,000. Without a doubt the stupidist move I have ever made. But I was young and actually thought you get what you pay for. Shall we say, NOT! So asking $40000 for the month is not out of line in that world.

OK there baller, enough of the bullshit, here you are completely in shock that an sp has the gall to charge 500$ an hour and you're ballin' for 30g's a weekend. Guys who can afford to spend 30gs a weekend don't hang out on escort review boards, guys who make up stories about it do.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?544306-Rates&highlight=

Good catch Wazup.
People must live boring lives to pretend to be someone else online.

 

[Aardvark154]

Chloë, Not that I'm in this income bracket, very few of us are. But from what you post, seemingly it might be far less expensive just to look for a 'sugar baby'? Indeed they are likely not as skilled a courtesan, but then again money does speak a language all its own.

 

[Smallcock]

Vey interesting thoughts.

The main reason why I brought this up is you see a lot of cross over from the sugar baby to the escort word, at least online and even in documentaries. There is also the old argument about whether or not it is considered prostitution or not, and various hierarchies seem to form from it.
Regarding the variety comment, some people see one Sp, and one Sp only and don't find value in variety. Of course others love variety and there is nothing wrong with that.

Yes, there certainly are questions of true monogamy, and yes BBFS should be out of the question for any party.

Looking at the thread cited, it does seem as though I was not the only crazy one who wondered whether or not it crosses into this industry.

Not to worry, by the way. I won't be leaving this job for SA. I enjoy myself and the connections I make too much. .

Best wishes,
-Chloe Summers.

No. In a sincere monogamous relationship, bbfs should very much be part of the equation. If it's not, it indicative of the fact that neither party actually believes the relationship is monogamous - in other words it's a sham, a hoax, empty words. Trust is the basis of a monogamous relationship. Anybody can practice fake exclusivity.

Can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[Chloë.]

Chloë, Not that I'm in this income bracket, very few of us are. But from what you post, seemingly it might be far less expensive just to look for a 'sugar baby'? Indeed they are likely not as skilled a courtesan, but then again money does speak a language all its own.

They tend to be less expensive. One thing I take away from that dynamic is often times, the man isn't looking for a "pro" and more of an "organic" experience. I personally hate that view because who's to say a professional cannot emulate something real? There is still a transaction in place for both options. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement. It is just a question of how beneficial. A pro usually has that figured out from the get go (opportunity costs and all), a sugar baby on the other hand may discover her needs fluctuate over time.

 

[ChloeSummers]

That's an interesting point, smallcock.

Still, like companionship and sex, the monogamy would be the act of it, and at a professional level so I feel it still qualifies. It seems to be more of a monogamous transaction than a monogamous relationship, hence the payment and contracts. Still, at the core of it, you can't say you're wrong either. It depends on how you look at it. It's the same as how you look at other interactions in this industry too.

Again, I'm not for or against it. I actually have more negative opinions on how it could be applied to my life, but I'm not up for expressing that. If it works for some people that's great, interesting even.

Thanks for chiming in
-Chloe.

No. In a sincere monogamous relationship, bbfs should very much be part of the equation. If it's not, it indicative of the fact that neither party actually believes the relationship is monogamous - in other words it's a sham, a hoax, empty words. Trust is the basis of a monogamous relationship. Anybody can practice fake exclusivity.

Can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[dirkd101]

I disagree Smallcock, using protection is a part of a relationship too. Unless she's on the pill or you have had a successful vasectomy, one uses protection in order to mitigate the risks of an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[ChloeSummers]

Well said, and not something I really focused on while thinking about it.
Yeah, compatibility would be key. It's certainly not something to talk about during a first meet. It probably looks best if it's an Sp/client relationship turned into an arrangement after a few visits.

And another point was made about using protection; I've been in condoms only relationships despite monogamy in a two year relationship. Some people are paranpid about pregnancy even with the pill.

-Chloe.

i don't see why any SP wouldn't consider this if it were the right fit and if it's someone you can stand being around for more than a couple of hours every few weeks. i've been approached numerous times for ongoing arrangements and this isn't all that different. my only problem is that i think monogamy is a pretty outdated way to approach romance of any kind, so anyone asking for this would most likely not be the right fit for me to even consider something ongoing. this would be the SP's work, so what if the SP meets someone she likes outside of the 'job' and wants to start a 'real' relationship with that person? that would probably be my strongest reluctance. but still there's no reason to not do it for the time being, until one of you gets bored and wants to move on. as with any relationship.