Prossie refusing to see me because SHE thinks I'm in love with her

[Colston36]

in my opinion it's a very much frowned upon thing to do

Frowned upon by whom? Because of what?

[alabama1]

Frowned upon by whom? Because of what?

By both punters and wg's i should imagine. It's not very discrete/professional to send unsolicited text messages to punters is it ? for obvious reasons. 

[MissWolf]

By both punters and wg's i should imagine. It's not very discrete/professional to send unsolicited text messages to punters is it ? for obvious reasons. 

This 100%

[daviemac]

Frowned upon by whom? Because of what?

Are you OK with escorts contacting you any time they like. If so you are the exception rather than the rule. 

[Lou2019]

By both punters and wg's i should imagine. It's not very discrete/professional to send unsolicited text messages to punters is it ? for obvious reasons. 

 

[Mr Doodle]

Does it matter why she has blocked you? She has, so, unless you wanted to make something more of it than transactional sex, move on.. Even in these pandemic times, there are alternatives.

[Colston36]

By both punters and wg's i should imagine. It's not very discrete/professional to send unsolicited text messages to punters is it ? for obvious reasons. 

Oh. Indiscreet. Yes.

[Strawberry]

It was the 'she called me' part I kept coming back to.

[spiralnotebook]

What a great Mills & Boone storyline. The film version could feature Liz Hurley as the tart and Hugh Grant as the punter...

[willie loman]

i am slightly baffled at the view that she has blocked him because she has feelings for him, and that she has crossed boundaries, its not as if its a doctor patient relationship. Hardly a month goes by , without me hearing about some wg, who has hooked up with a customer, and has left the business, wgs like most single women are on the look out.

[dubhcarr]

lol you fucker

I think it's her that has the thing for you, realised she crossed boundaries hence the blocking

agree that was my first reaction.   

[Rochelle]

Oh. Indiscreet. Yes.

Depends on the punter, innit.
All this talk about messaging actually reminded me about a guy I hadn't seen in ages. So I sent him a message on WhatsApp and we've arranged something.

[Lou2019]

It was the 'she called me' part I kept coming back to.

 

[Crockers]

I currently have 4 regs. (I'm on the lookout for s 5th as girls keep coming and going so always good to have a large stable.)

I've told them all they can contact me whenever they are at a loose end, with no commitment on me to say yes.

Two of the girls baulked at the idea straightaway:

'NO! YOU contact me.'

The other two shrugged and said ok, and text me with suggested dates. Half the time I say ok, half the time I don't.

All negotiated consent with adults.

However, to reiterate, all of our comms outside the bedroom are about arranging a meet.

If I ever contacted a girl on a separate matter, or to flirt, they would drop me like a stone.

My question is, therefore, what was the nature of the OP's final text to the girl before she went all Nae Pasaran on him?

[pbrown355]

The OP has stopped contributing. Does that mean he's learned something, or just didn't like what he was reading?
In all my years punting I've never sent nor received a communication from a WG that wasn't meeting related. I won't be doing so any time soon.
My opinion is that they probably both overstepped some invisible line but the WG is wiser than the OP and has acted accordingly.

[SALIBA]

The OP has stopped contributing. Does that mean he's learned something, or just didn't like what he was reading?
In all my years punting I've never sent nor received a communication from a WG that wasn't meeting related. I won't be doing so any time soon.
My opinion is that they probably both overstepped some invisible line but the WG is wiser than the OP and has acted accordingly.

agreed, the fact he refers to her as "prossie" suggests some contempt for the situation on his behalf too, but also whoever saying she might have had some sort of feelings for him also might be correct to some extent too.

[Lou2019]

Depends on the punter, innit.
All this talk about messaging actually reminded me about a guy I hadn't seen in ages. So I sent him a message on WhatsApp and we've arranged something.

I guess if you have that relationship with them and both parties are happy for that type of communication

[Lou2019]

Sign of a dusty phone, I'd say.

exactly I'd feel like I'm begging

[cotton]

I actually dont mind it when a hooker messages me,  it may begin with asking how you are but they always want something , might be arranging a meet to get money or just to ask for money if they are desperate , or to update you on a new number or just tell you they are about , or ask about somewhere to stay.  To frame it in terms of a begging vibe i quite welcome the opportunity to help a hooker in need out , depending on if i feel like it and i warm to the hooker in question.
But everyones circumstances will be different , i dont have a significant other looking over my shoulder .

[Hobbit]

Depends on the punter, innit.
All this talk about messaging actually reminded me about a guy I hadn't seen in ages. So I sent him a message on WhatsApp and we've arranged something.

Really? If he was a punter then that's very strange because in my 20 years of punting I have never had a girl initiate contact. Not many hookers do that.

[snaitram99]

agreed, the fact he refers to her as "prossie" suggests some contempt for the situation

Are you suggesting the word prossie is insulting compared to whore, hooker, prostitute etc.? I think the consensus when it was banned by Admin Up The Manor (who seems to have vanished) was that most people did not think it was offensive.

[daviemac]

agreed, the fact he refers to her as "prossie" suggests some contempt for the situation on his behalf too, but also whoever saying she might have had some sort of feelings for him also might be correct to some extent too.

I think you will find there is a large number of escorts who would refer to themselves as a 'prossie'. Any such term can be use in a derogatory manner depending on context. 

[Crockers]

exactly I'd feel like I'm begging

Of the girls who contact me one has no AW profile but works one day a week from a brothel. She let's me know when her days change.

The other girl isn't always active on AW but is still working, but only wants to see less clients, that is, regs. So let's me know when she's around.

[JAYZ]

One lady I saw before the pandemic, on the third of our meetings proposed marriage three times during our 90 minutes of passion. She also told me I was acting as if I loved her.

[finn5555]

If a pro$$ie drops you a message soliciting and you don’t need that in your life just block them 

That’s the beauty of punting phones 

[MysteryManNo.7]

As several others have said, it sounds like she was falling for you and made an excuse to block you and not see you again.

Something similar happened to me as in a WG I saw asked me out during a booking and we dated for a month before I broke it off.

[Stevelondon]

I’ve had a few dates with SP’s and have made friends with at least three that I still see socially and keep in touch with by WhatsApp etc.  More over the years.

Christ..... life’s too fuckin short to be worrying about,
“I’d never date a prossie” (hate those terms ie hooker.... I don’t have sex with rugby players)

I get on with my life and don’t worry about mediocre stuff.
It doesn’t matter what your job is in life. It’s who you are that matters.
You don’t get to choose family but you can choose your friends.

Apologies.... went a bit of tack there.
Damn this old peculiar is stronger than I remember. 

[Barnaby Bear]

I don't see the issue.  If you feel so elevated that you can speak disrepectfully of someone, then that's great.  You are paying for the ability to do that.  If you provide a sexual service and baulk at the idea of repeat business with a certain client, but either do it for the money or block them, then great, you have equality of bargaining power to do so.  If a service provider starts to get all damp eyed over one of their clients, then great, that's quite nice.  If a client really likes a service provider and repeatedly sees her, then great, that's equally as lovely. 

If the feelings are reciprocated, then great, have a relationship, if they aren't, then great, don't have a relationship.

This whole make believe ethics committee on who should see whom, for what reason and when, this whole line-crossing nonsense, it's all a bit made up.

Some clients would never see a service provider, on the grounds that they are a service provider, that's fair enough but perhaps they would do well to remember that they are the ones that are paying for sex.  Those service providers who scoff at their clients having to pay for sex would do well to remember that they are the ones selling it and are not in a position to start moralising.

If you start to fall for a service provider, then the onus is on you.  If she starts to fall for you then the onus is on her.  If you believe that she is falling for you then you are probably wrong, and if she believes you are falling for her she will milk it until you have no more money to spend.

[willie loman]

I don't see the issue.  If you feel so elevated that you can speak disrepectfully of someone, then that's great.  You are paying for the ability to do that.  If you provide a sexual service and baulk at the idea of repeat business with a certain client, but either do it for the money or block them, then great, you have equality of bargaining power to do so.  If a service provider starts to get all damp eyed over one of their clients, then great, that's quite nice.  If a client really likes a service provider and repeatedly sees her, then great, that's equally as lovely. 

If the feelings are reciprocated, then great, have a relationship, if they aren't, then great, don't have a relationship.

This whole make believe ethics committee on who should see whom, for what reason and when, this whole line-crossing nonsense, it's all a bit made up.

Some clients would never see a service provider, on the grounds that they are a service provider, that's fair enough but perhaps they would do well to remember that they are the ones that are paying for sex.  Those service providers who scoff at their clients having to pay for sex would do well to remember that they are the ones selling it and are not in a position to start moralising.

If you start to fall for a service provider, then the onus is on you.  If she starts to fall for you then the onus is on her.  If you believe that she is falling for you then you are probably wrong, and if she believes you are falling for her she will milk it until you have no more money to spend.

an outbreak of common sense, good post.

[Rochelle]

I don't see the issue.  If you feel so elevated that you can speak disrepectfully of someone, then that's great.  You are paying for the ability to do that.  If you provide a sexual service and baulk at the idea of repeat business with a certain client, but either do it for the money or block them, then great, you have equality of bargaining power to do so.  If a service provider starts to get all damp eyed over one of their clients, then great, that's quite nice.  If a client really likes a service provider and repeatedly sees her, then great, that's equally as lovely. 

If the feelings are reciprocated, then great, have a relationship, if they aren't, then great, don't have a relationship.

This whole make believe ethics committee on who should see whom, for what reason and when, this whole line-crossing nonsense, it's all a bit made up.

Some clients would never see a service provider, on the grounds that they are a service provider, that's fair enough but perhaps they would do well to remember that they are the ones that are paying for sex.  Those service providers who scoff at their clients having to pay for sex would do well to remember that they are the ones selling it and are not in a position to start moralising.

If you start to fall for a service provider, then the onus is on you.  If she starts to fall for you then the onus is on her.  If you believe that she is falling for you then you are probably wrong, and if she believes you are falling for her she will milk it until you have no more money to spend.

Hidden Image/Members Only

[Stevelondon]

I like Barnaby Bears post too.

Lots of ifs and buts though and winner of the award for post using the word “great” the most. 

But yep. What I said.
Get on with life rather than worrying about stuff.

I bet it’s been talked about and argued over for eternity.
Prossies, hookers, escorts, working girls, escorts etc........ punters saying they wouldn’t touch one in civvie street.

Why is that then.
Wouldn’t degrade yourself, is that the reason.

Look at it the other way. Your the one paying for sex. Maybe she wouldn’t degrade herself by going out with a bloke who has too.
 

Like I said. It’s a load of bollocks. Live your life, enjoy.
I tell you. As you get older (me included) you come to realise that life ain’t all that long to be worrying about meaningless crap.

[Horseman]

I like Barnaby Bears post too.

Lots of ifs and buts though and winner of the award for post using the word “great” the most. 

But yep. What I said.
Get on with life rather than worrying about stuff.

I bet it’s been talked about and argued over for eternity.
Prossies, hookers, escorts, working girls, escorts etc........ punters saying they wouldn’t touch one in civvie street.

Why is that then.
Wouldn’t degrade yourself, is that the reason.

Look at it the other way. Your the one paying for sex. Maybe she wouldn’t degrade herself by going out with a bloke who has too.
 

Like I said. It’s a load of bollocks. Live your life, enjoy.
I tell you. As you get older (me included) you come to realise that life ain’t all that long to be worrying about meaningless crap.

Good post.

Id honestly in the "probably would never date a WG" camp. Won't say never, because who knows what the future holds.

It's not because I think they're beneath me or anything. More a fact of who I am. I'm not sure I'd handle the knowledge that she was sleeping with other people very well. Ultimately I think jealousy would get the better of me and things would not turn out well!

[Barnaby Bear]

Good post.

Id honestly in the "probably would never date a WG" camp. Won't say never, because who knows what the future holds.

It's not because I think they're beneath me or anything. More a fact of who I am. I'm not sure I'd handle the knowledge that she was sleeping with other people very well. Ultimately I think jealousy would get the better of me and things would not turn out well!

Should there be a "knowingly" in there somewhere.  How do you 'know' that you haven't already dated a WG.  No one truly knows - you see to my mind, if you do 'know' that the girl you are dating has never worked as a service provider, then your wife/gf/partner (if relevant) would also 'know' that you had seen a WG at some point.

To my mind it cannot be the case that a client is blessed with some form of insight into the past histories of everyone around them, that somehow everyone around them is lacking.

I have dated a WG (early 90s), not for long, about 3 months and she broke it off.  Objectively (to my mind), an established relationship with a non-WG, where she cheats with another bloke, is no different to dating a WG, who has repeat clients.  The only difference is that the WG is honest and the non-WG is a liar.

It is mostly down to insecurities and dislocation of expectation.  Why would you want to date a service provider, knowing that she is one?  Why would a service provider want to date one of her clients?  It takes all sorts, and who are any of us to set down the rules as to who anyone can date and why.  There is no interview process and if everyone is happy and no one is getting hurt, then there is no problem in my view.

[Horseman]

Should there be a "knowingly" in there somewhere.  How do you 'know' that you haven't already dated a WG.  No one truly knows - you see to my mind, if you do 'know' that the girl you are dating has never worked as a service provider, then your wife/gf/partner (if relevant) would also 'know' that you had seen a WG at some point.

To my mind it cannot be the case that a client is blessed with some form of insight into the past histories of everyone around them, that somehow everyone around them is lacking.

I have dated a WG (early 90s), not for long, about 3 months and she broke it off.  Objectively (to my mind), an established relationship with a non-WG, where she cheats with another bloke, is no different to dating a WG, who has repeat clients.  The only difference is that the WG is honest and the non-WG is a liar.

It is mostly down to insecurities and dislocation of expectation.  Why would you want to date a service provider, knowing that she is one?  Why would a service provider want to date one of her clients?  It takes all sorts, and who are any of us to set down the rules as to who anyone can date and why.  There is no interview process and if everyone is happy and no one is getting hurt, then there is no problem in my view.

Fair comment. There should be a knowingly in there. Can't be 100% certain I never have and can't know I never will without be aware of the fact!

[Thephoenix]

Should there be a "knowingly" in there somewhere.  How do you 'know' that you haven't already dated a WG.  No one truly knows - you see to my mind, if you do 'know' that the girl you are dating has never worked as a service provider, then your wife/gf/partner (if relevant) would also 'know' that you had seen a WG at some point.

To my mind it cannot be the case that a client is blessed with some form of insight into the past histories of everyone around them, that somehow everyone around them is lacking.

I have dated a WG (early 90s), not for long, about 3 months and she broke it off.  Objectively (to my mind), an established relationship with a non-WG, where she cheats with another bloke, is no different to dating a WG, who has repeat clients.  The only difference is that the WG is honest and the non-WG is a liar.

It is mostly down to insecurities and dislocation of expectation.  Why would you want to date a service provider, knowing that she is one?  Why would a service provider want to date one of her clients?  It takes all sorts, and who are any of us to set down the rules as to who anyone can date and why.  There is no interview process and if everyone is happy and no one is getting hurt, then there is no problem in my view.

Good post +1

[snaitram99]

If a pro$$ie drops you a message soliciting and you don’t need that in your life just block them 

That’s the beauty of punting phones 

We can say prossies now, it doesn't become Sex Worker. 

[Barnaby Bear]

We can say prossies now, it doesn't become Sex Worker. 

Sex worker, working girl, service provider... etc these are all just socially more acceptable terms to use than prostitute aren't they?  You're right of course, prossie, hooker, street-walker etc, they are all synonomous.

I prefer the term service provider and client - it's a business relationship ultimately, albeit based on an unenforceable contract.

I am equally comfortable with john, punter, sad lonely bastard, etc - if that's how I am described.  Makes no difference to me, it's a business contract where the terms are clearly defined before, during and after.  The names of the parties to the contract I will leave to someone else to worry about.

[Dopedj]

Are you allergic to using the block button yourself , ffs 🤦🏼‍♂️
Leave these crazy actresses alone, from what I can see you’re a young guy,concentrate on getting your money up and getting married to a descent lady.
Block her and move on

[B4bcock]

Are you allergic to using the block button yourself , ffs 🤦🏼‍♂️
Leave these crazy actresses alone, from what I can see you’re a young guy,concentrate on getting your money up and getting married to a descent lady.
Block her and move on

Is that a girl who will go down on you???   

[Horseman]

Is that a girl who will go down on you???   

Definitely one of the criteria 

[tynetunnel]

I tell you. As you get older (me included) you come to realise that life ain’t all that long to be worrying about meaningless crap.

This 🔼

[snaitram99]

Sex worker, working girl, service provider... etc these are all just socially more acceptable terms to use than prostitute aren't they?  You're right of course, prossie, hooker, street-walker etc, they are all synonomous.

I prefer the term service provider and client - it's a business relationship ultimately, albeit based on an unenforceable contract.

I am equally comfortable with john, punter, sad lonely bastard, etc - if that's how I am described.  Makes no difference to me, it's a business contract where the terms are clearly defined before, during and after.  The names of the parties to the contract I will leave to someone else to worry about.

I don't mind the term Sex Worker and use it at the GUM clinic as it's the term they use, but you may not know that a previous Admin, no longer here, took offence at the use of prossie and made it auto-correct to Sex Worker, causing consternation to many who found it inoffensive. I'll say no more or  I'll prob get in trouble with Davie.

[Barnaby Bear]

I don't mind the term Sex Worker and use it at the GUM clinic as it's the term they use, but you may not know that a previous Admin, no longer here, took offence at the use of prossie and made it auto-correct to Sex Worker, causing consternation to many who found it inoffensive. I'll say no more or  I'll prob get in trouble with Davie.

No, I didn't know that.  I have been using the site for a long time but could only join recently.

"Prossie" is a perjorative term, I don't use it myself but I also don't subscribe to the feminist narrative of making prostitution powerful in some way.  I guess I wouldn't want to be referred to in an insulting way, so I wouldn't do it to anyone else.

Each to their own though.

[JustaPunter]

I don't see the issue.  If you feel so elevated that you can speak disrepectfully of someone, then that's great.  You are paying for the ability to do that.  If you provide a sexual service and baulk at the idea of repeat business with a certain client, but either do it for the money or block them, then great, you have equality of bargaining power to do so.  If a service provider starts to get all damp eyed over one of their clients, then great, that's quite nice.  If a client really likes a service provider and repeatedly sees her, then great, that's equally as lovely. 

If the feelings are reciprocated, then great, have a relationship, if they aren't, then great, don't have a relationship.

This whole make believe ethics committee on who should see whom, for what reason and when, this whole line-crossing nonsense, it's all a bit made up.

Some clients would never see a service provider, on the grounds that they are a service provider, that's fair enough but perhaps they would do well to remember that they are the ones that are paying for sex.  Those service providers who scoff at their clients having to pay for sex would do well to remember that they are the ones selling it and are not in a position to start moralising.

If you start to fall for a service provider, then the onus is on you.  If she starts to fall for you then the onus is on her.  If you believe that she is falling for you then you are probably wrong, and if she believes you are falling for her she will milk it until you have no more money to spend.

Well said

[Rochelle]

Should there be a "knowingly" in there somewhere.  How do you 'know' that you haven't already dated a WG.  No one truly knows - you see to my mind, if you do 'know' that the girl you are dating has never worked as a service provider, then your wife/gf/partner (if relevant) would also 'know' that you had seen a WG at some point.

To my mind it cannot be the case that a client is blessed with some form of insight into the past histories of everyone around them, that somehow everyone around them is lacking.

I have dated a WG (early 90s), not for long, about 3 months and she broke it off.  Objectively (to my mind), an established relationship with a non-WG, where she cheats with another bloke, is no different to dating a WG, who has repeat clients.  The only difference is that the WG is honest and the non-WG is a liar.

It is mostly down to insecurities and dislocation of expectation.  Why would you want to date a service provider, knowing that she is one?  Why would a service provider want to date one of her clients?  It takes all sorts, and who are any of us to set down the rules as to who anyone can date and why.  There is no interview process and if everyone is happy and no one is getting hurt, then there is no problem in my view.

Again
👏