Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Donkey******)
    Think you'll find it's the other way round. There's very few charging £1000 a night successfully, and far more charging <£60 an hour who are nearer prostitutes than escorts.
    Then that's in agreement with my original point, that if they're taking money for sex most of the time then they're prostitutes that also happen to do escort work. A prostitute may also do a little escorting work on the side for a bit of money - sort of a "We'll have sex, but pay me extra and we can go out for a while first" type of deal. As I said, I'm not saying that even high end escorts don't take money for sex on occasion, but as I said, a rich person is most often a financially-smart person - they're not likely to pay a sophisticated woman a tonne of money to have sex with when they can pay someone cheap with - not being rude - more loose morals and have a better time, or just as good at least, whilst spending a fraction.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    Then that's in agreement with my original point, that if they're taking money for sex most of the time then they're prostitutes that also happen to do escort work. A prostitute may also do a little escorting work on the side for a bit of money - sort of a "We'll have sex, but pay me extra and we can go out for a while first" type of deal. As I said, I'm not saying that even high end escorts don't take money for sex on occasion, but as I said, a rich person is most often a financially-smart person - they're not likely to pay a sophisticated woman a tonne of money to have sex with when they can pay someone cheap with - not being rude - more loose morals and have a better time, or just as good at least, whilst spending a fraction.
    The point is, very few women label themselves as prostitutes, they all umbrella themselves under escorts. If you take women who purely charge for their time, granted there's probably very few who don't charge <£100/h however when you take the whole demographic of women who you'd call prostitutes, but they say escort, there's a massive shift towards the lower end in terms of rates.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Fair point.

    And research shows that if a woman walks straight up to a man and asks simply "would you have sex with me", a significant proportion of men would say yes. No monetary exchange involved.

    Funny that when you think about it.
    When you say "research" please tell me you have something more credible than a youtube video you once watched. If so I'd love to see it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Donkey******)
    The point is, very few women label themselves as prostitutes, they all umbrella themselves under escorts. If you take women who purely charge for their time, granted there's probably very few who don't charge <£100/h however when you take the whole demographic of women who you'd call prostitutes, but they say escort, there's a massive shift towards the lower end in terms of rates.
    Again, this was exactly my point to start with. A lot of people use the term interchangeably when they shouldn't. A prostitute charges for sex. An escort charges for their company. You can do a bit of both, but to say all escorts also are basically prostitutes is incorrect.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    When you say "research" please tell me you have something more credible than a youtube video you once watched. If so I'd love to see it.
    Well I did say research, didn't I?

    It's a pretty well known psychological study. A field study where strangers approached women and men and asked if they'd like to go back to their apartment for sex. Most women responded along the lines of "wtf". In contrast, a lot of men were like "hell yes :sexface:".

    It's probably quite easy to find, being one of those popular research studies, I believe it was on the A-level syllabus.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Well I did say research, didn't I?

    It's a pretty well known psychological study. A field study where strangers approached women and men and asked if they'd like to go back to their apartment for sex. Most women responded along the lines of "wtf". In contrast, a lot of men were like "hell yes :sexface:".

    It's probably quite easy to find, being one of those popular research studies, I believe it was on the A-level syllabus.
    If you're going to refer to something I'd expect you to be able to provide it, not just be "oh, it's out there somewhere".

    Until you do I'm calling ******** on so many levels. Studies like that would have to be done with hundreds of different people asking, across thousands of people being asked, across all sexual preferences, to be able to draw conclusions on any significant differences between the sexes in such matters.

    If I man pulled up in some parts of the world in an Armani suit, sitting in a convertible Ferrari, and asked that question, he'd have a much better shot than a smelly girl trudging down the street in a tatty onsie. Did they take anything like that into account? Because I reckon most people would agree that day to day girls work more to make themselves presentable than guys do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Made this account to reply anonymously. I escorted for a while and the going rate in London is around £100ph. I charged £120 because there is a high demand for girls like me who do the job well. I saw three clients a day on a good day, and more if I decided to work the night too. I provided GFE mostly, and was independent because screw agencies- they don't ever have the escort's interest at heart. Escort and prostitute as terms are used synonymously- prostitute is almost always used pejoratively and so I don't call myself one. There is really no difference in job, though, whatever you're called. I escorted for the money and because I don't care about sex too much- I'm aromantic and honestly I got sick of having bad sex for free. I go to a top world university currently and have stopped escorting as it's incompatible with the field I want to get into professionally in the future. Any respectful questions and I'd be happy to shed some light.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    If you're going to refer to something I'd expect you to be able to provide it, not just be "oh, it's out there somewhere".

    Until you do I'm calling ******** on so many levels. Studies like that would have to be done with hundreds of different people asking, across thousands of people being asked, across all sexual preferences, to be able to draw conclusions on any significant differences between the sexes in such matters.

    If I man pulled up in some parts of the world in an Armani suit, sitting in a convertible Ferrari, and asked that question, he'd have a much better shot than a smelly girl trudging down the street in a tatty onsie. Did they take anything like that into account? Because I reckon most people would agree that day to day girls work more to make themselves presentable than guys do.
    You seem to think you know more than the academics who designed this study.
    You don't think they took into consideration factors such as physical attractiveness, how they presented themselves etc. Are you for serious?

    It wouldn't have to be done using "thousands of people", in order to find meaning in a significant result. It's a very simple design.

    It's pretty easy to find considering its one of those pop-psychology studies often mentioned in the media etc. Ah here it is-

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1.../J056v02n01_04

    I haven't read it, like I said I simply remember it from A-level psychology over 5 years ago. But you seem to be unable to search for research studies so I had to spoon feed you the link
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    You seem to think you know more than the academics who designed this study.
    You don't think they took into consideration factors such as physical attractiveness, how they presented themselves etc. Are you for serious?

    It wouldn't have to be done using "thousands of people", in order to find meaning in a significant result. It's a very simple design.

    It's pretty easy to find considering its one of those pop-psychology studies often mentioned in the media etc. Ah here it is-

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1.../J056v02n01_04

    I haven't read it, like I said I simply remember it from A-level psychology over 5 years ago. But you seem to be unable to search for research studies so I had to spoon feed you the link
    So it's a study of college girls (the age at which most women are at their physical prime) and college boys (the age at which most men are still showing signs of spots, have a terrible dress sense and smell a bit funny). I'm sorry, but that right there ruins any sort of validity of the findings in my eyes. Go back and do it with a 35 year old, well dressed banker and a 35 year old, frumpy teacher and see what happens. This is exactly why I feel it should be done with a wide variety of people asking a wide variety of suitors. Without it there is just way to much bias for any statistical significance to make gender wide assumptions.

    Apart from anything so many factors beyond the actual desire for sex come into play. Especially on college campuses there seems to be, as some women claim, a constant fear of sexual assault in one form or another. Men are expected to react to anything to do with sex with a certain amount of bravado etc. I wonder how many of these guys would actually have followed through with it given the chance.

    Sure, their results are clear, but the methodology and ability to draw any solid conclusions from it beyond the obvious of "men said yes more" is on par with most psychology studies. i.e, Absolute shite. It's also 40 years old.

    I don't think I know more than these academics, I just think they're lazy and wanted to get a paper out with minimal effort.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    So it's a study of college girls (the age at which most women are at their physical prime) and college boys (the age at which most men are still showing signs of spots, have a terrible dress sense and smell a bit funny). I'm sorry, but that right there ruins any sort of validity of the findings in my eyes. Go back and do it with a 35 year old, well dressed banker and a 35 year old, frumpy teacher and see what happens. This is exactly why I feel it should be done with a wide variety of people asking a wide variety of suitors. Without it there is just way to much bias for any statistical significance to make gender wide assumptions.

    Apart from anything so many factors beyond the actual desire for sex come into play. Especially on college campuses there seems to be, as some women claim, a constant fear of sexual assault in one form or another. Men are expected to react to anything to do with sex with a certain amount of bravado etc. I wonder how many of these guys would actually have followed through with it given the chance.

    Sure, their results are clear, but the methodology and ability to draw any solid conclusions from it beyond the obvious of "men said yes more" is on par with most psychology studies. i.e, Absolute shite. It's also 40 years old.

    I don't think I know more than these academics, I just think they're lazy and wanted to get a paper out with minimal effort.
    Speak for yourself sweetheart! I know a hell of a lot of college aged guys who are very attractive. What you're saying applies to teenagers, not adults. Most college students have overcome their spotty face by then (sorry if you haven't though, must be tough).

    I haven't read it, but it says both the male and female used are average in terms of attractiveness. How did they determine that? I'm assuming judges rated them before hand? If that's the case then that completely debunks the entirely of your first paragraph. It doesn't matter whether you think many boys of college age are below average in terms of attractiveness, what matters is that the male used in this study, was average.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Speak for yourself sweetheart! I know a hell of a lot of college aged guys who are very attractive. What you're saying applies to teenagers, not adults. Most college students have overcome their spotty face by then (sorry if you haven't though, must be tough).

    I haven't read it, but it says both the male and female used are average in terms of attractiveness. How did they determine that? I'm assuming judges rated them before hand? If that's the case then that completely debunks the entirely of your first paragraph. It doesn't matter whether you think many boys of college age are below average in terms of attractiveness, what matters is that the male used in this study, was average.
    Undoubtably a lot are, but pretty universally women are seen to be at their peak around that age, whereas men are seen to peak a bit older. An average 28 year old man is likely to be more attractive than an average college man. Equally an average college woman is equally to be more attractive than an average 28 year old woman. I have to admit I couldn't read the actual paper, but googled the title and read a summary. They mentioned in the method about picking the attractiveness of the people they approached, but nothing about the attractiveness of those doing the approaching.

    Either way, unless the test is done with a broad cross section of society, approaching a broad cross section of society, then it is not a suitable basis for generalisations about entire genders. Also for it to be determined about how much of it were down to wanting sex, and not just bravado, they would have to follow through with it (if the people the approach actually would) and analyse the people who partook post-intercourse.

    Basically the study is, as previously mentioned, complete shite, as are most psychology studies in my opinion. The only conclusion you can draw from it is that more male students will say yes to a female student than vice versa. Anything conclusion beyond that is beyond the scope of the study.

    And you can attack me personally all you want. I just find it laughable and think all it does is expose your own lack of conviction in your argument.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    Undoubtably a lot are, but pretty universally women are seen to be at their peak around that age, whereas men are seen to peak a bit older. An average 28 year old man is likely to be more attractive than an average college man. Equally an average college woman is equally to be more attractive than an average 28 year old woman. I have to admit I couldn't read the actual paper, but googled the title and read a summary. They mentioned in the method about picking the attractiveness of the people they approached, but nothing about the attractiveness of those doing the approaching.

    Either way, unless the test is done with a broad cross section of society, approaching a broad cross section of society, then it is not a suitable basis for generalisations about entire genders. Also for it to be determined about how much of it were down to wanting sex, and not just bravado, they would have to follow through with it (if the people the approach actually would) and analyse the people who partook post-intercourse.

    Basically the study is, as previously mentioned, complete shite, as are most psychology studies in my opinion. The only conclusion you can draw from it is that more male students will say yes to a female student than vice versa. Anything conclusion beyond that is beyond the scope of the study.

    And you can attack me personally all you want. I just find it laughable and think all it does is expose your own lack of conviction in your argument.
    It doesn't matter if more women are on average more attractive at college age, and that more males are more attractive later on in life, because they are simply averages. What matters is the individuals used in the study.

    Wh couldn't you read the actual paper? I just downloaded the pdf with one click, it's open access? Unless you mean you physically cannot read research papers? You get overwhelmed or something?

    You think you are capable of criticising a research study which you haven't even bothered to read. Hilarious, I'll help you.

    It quite clearly states in the research paper that the confederates used to approach members of the public were pre-rated, and varied from slightly unattractive to moderately attractive. Further, they found that the ratings of their attractiveness did not effect the results. Something which surprises me somewhat.

    So I fail to see the relevance of your remark that women peak during college years, and males peak later on in life? Which also btw, you can't just state as if it's a fact, you'd need to back that statement up with a psychological study. But how can you do that when all psychological studies are complete shite? Just because you find older men more attractive, doesn't mean everyone else feels the same

    And there's no way for you to prove your statement, because any psychological study that would support you would simply by "shite!" Right?

    I also find it amazing that you have an omniscient like understanding of every psychological study ever published. I'm sure the researchers of studies published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences would be very interested to know why you, someone without even an undergraduate degree, thinks their study is "complete shite".

    Ooh I know. If you like you can read this research paper and then give me your oh so wise reasons as to why it's "utter shite", I could forward them your criticisms via email? I'm sure they'd be thrilled to learn how their decades of research is shite!

    Perhaps you could provide me with some insightful criticisms for this study concerning the role of specific Copy Number Variants as risk factors for schizophrenia?

    http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/mobi...icleid=2545075

    That's if you can read it that is!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    It doesn't matter if more women are on average more attractive at college age, and that more males are more attractive later on in life, because they are simply averages. What matters is the individuals used in the study.

    Wh couldn't you read the actual paper? I just downloaded the pdf with one click, it's open access? Unless you mean you physically cannot read research papers? You get overwhelmed or something?

    You think you are capable of criticising a research study which you haven't even bothered to read. Hilarious, I'll help you.

    It quite clearly states in the research paper that the confederates used to approach members of the public were pre-rated, and varied from slightly unattractive to moderately attractive. Further, they found that the ratings of their attractiveness did not effect the results. Something which surprises me somewhat.

    So I fail to see the relevance of your remark that women peak during college years, and males peak later on in life? Which also btw, you can't just state as if it's a fact, you'd need to back that statement up with a psychological study. But how can you do that when all psychological studies are complete shite? Just because you find older men more attractive, doesn't mean everyone else feels the same

    And there's no way for you to prove your statement, because any psychological study that would support you would simply by "shite!" Right?

    I also find it amazing that you have an omniscient like understanding of every psychological study ever published. I'm sure the researchers of studies published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences would be very interested to know why you, someone without even an undergraduate degree, thinks their study is "complete shite".

    Ooh I know. If you like you can read this research paper and then give me your oh so wise reasons as to why it's "utter shite", I could forward them your criticisms via email? I'm sure they'd be thrilled to learn how their decades of research is shite!

    Perhaps you could provide me with some insightful criticisms for this study concerning the role of specific Copy Number Variants as risk factors for schizophrenia?

    http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/mobi...icleid=2545075

    That's if you can read it that is!
    Oh dear, still trying with the personal attacks.

    If you genuinely think you can make generalisations about the mentality of entire genders based on a experiment involving a very small sample, all of a similar age and lifestyle, then I have nothing more to say. You're simply not worth my time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rapidosh)
    Honestly, why?

    It is perfectly legal and I know the money is great. But just having sex with random people? I honestly wouldn't do that for any money. But I do respect their decision to become escorts. As it's their life, their choice.

    Serious answers please. Reasons why they become and stay as escorts?
    Probably because they think having sex is more fun than typing numbers into a computer all day, they like the money, they are very short term in their approach, not too risk aware and not in a relationship.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sx2)
    Made this account to reply anonymously. I escorted for a while and the going rate in London is around £100ph. I charged £120 because there is a high demand for girls like me who do the job well. I saw three clients a day on a good day, and more if I decided to work the night too. I provided GFE mostly, and was independent because screw agencies- they don't ever have the escort's interest at heart. Escort and prostitute as terms are used synonymously- prostitute is almost always used pejoratively and so I don't call myself one. There is really no difference in job, though, whatever you're called. I escorted for the money and because I don't care about sex too much- I'm aromantic and honestly I got sick of having bad sex for free. I go to a top world university currently and have stopped escorting as it's incompatible with the field I want to get into professionally in the future. Any respectful questions and I'd be happy to shed some light.
    Fair enough. I can totally understand. Living in London is very expensive and if you just needed the money, then fair enough.

    Also what ethnicity are you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    cos some are damaged.

    others are normal and need the money.

    others are "normal" and do it for the lulz.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    it's wrong to say that necessarily it's due to being mentally ill..... The conservative morals of the OP or somebody else are not what psychiatric texts are based on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hi.

    I'm an escort and I can personally say that I'm not a drug user, I'm not from a broken home, I don't have 'daddy issues' and I'm not mentally ill!
    I'm from an educated family and I'm currently studying a full-time undergraduate degree.

    So why did I become an escort?
    Reason one, because I wanted to earn as much money as physically possible
    Reason two, because I worked a variety of menial jobs which bored me to death
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Well being able to potentially charge over 100 quid an hour for something that doesn't actually cost you anything to provide probably looks very good to a lot people, damaged or otherwise.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    cuz it makes u rich af lol :L
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.