Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.


Author Topic: How much does a popular Adultwork girl earn? - you'd be surprised  (Read 23824 times)

Offline Quesadilla

OP I'm trying to work out why, if it was obvious who the girl was to members who could be bothered to investigate, you didn't just say Michelle Independent reckons she doesn't break even? The options seems to be

-it wasn't obvious to you at the time that her identity would be worked out
-you hoped no one would identify her but you were itching to make the point about whore income
-you wanted to get her talked about but didn't want to be seen to be the one raising it
-you suspected everyone would join in the game of guess the prossie and that would be fun

Any of them close?
I think you're giving too much credit.

Summary - attention seeking whore creates "attention-grabbing" headline thread to tease and tantalise, but with zero substance, just hearsay. 

I'm sure Michelle is really happy she told him something in private that he's now made public, making her look, not to be mean but, frankly a bit dumb - if she can't even break even on a tour then the question is obviously going to get asked - why bother doing them?

But the thing is - the wanker is clearly making this shit up.  As Fredpunter already pointed out - MI is not actually a touring WG at all - this recent spate of hotel bookings in London seems to be her first "proper" tour - and a farewell tour at that.

At the point the wanker saw her the times she's come into town before (from reviews I've read as I've not seen her!) were mainly to do duo's with Cindy - I assume in those cases between them they shared hotel costs and surely both must have done all the better for it?

So it seems a very odd thing for her to share with the wanker, and an even more odd thing for him to share in this utterly pointless thread. Because even if she isn't making money from touring that hardly proves the original "point" of the thread that "some of the better know AW girls are living in penury".  IE - not just "not breaking even" but living in pretty much abject poverty!! 

The wanker was going on about how a WG living in the "shitty suburbs" might do ok but a touring girl in Zone 1 will be in poverty.  Yet MI has been based in the shitty suburbs of Highams Park for as long as I've been on here!  So still the thread makes no sense whatsoever.

In reality she probably made a very off-hand comment that the wanker has spun into a story in his tiny little mind and he's spun it into 12 pages of utter nonsense.  I know I'm more guilty than most as I just can't help pointing out the utter wank he keeps spouting despite him being on ignore.

New resolution for me - not to encourage the wanker anymore.

The pathetic little cunt is a waste of space, contributes NOTHING and should be banned.
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline west8

The pathetic little cunt is a waste of space, contributes NOTHING and should be banned.

Are you trying to tell Admin how to run his forum?

Are you trying to tell Admin how to run his forum?

I think he was giving an opinion but you are trying to influence admin using your usual weasel ways.

I think admin is more switched on to your reverse psychology tricks than you give him credit for. Did you learn that from your kids as it's a technique children use!


Offline west8

I think he was giving an opinion but you are trying to influence admin using your usual weasel ways.

I think admin is more switched on to your reverse psychology tricks than you give him credit for. Did you learn that from your kids as it's a technique children use!

Like you would know anything about being ‘switched on’, minitus. You can’t even read a five-point ratings scale for fucks sake! But thanks for responding on Quesadilla’s behalf. New troll in the house it would appear. You don’t need to reply to this post, but I have a feeling you won’t be able to help yourself.



And so you argued from the specific to the general, which I'm afraid is fallacious. You cannot generalise like that. All it proved was that at least one WG wasn't making a lot of money at that time.

No, I argued from the general to the general, but sadly one indiscreet fuckstick decided to make that general a very specific.



Your rating system is a nice try but looks like a beginner's stab to squeeze more out of artificially engineered number-crunching that can be supported by reality:
Looks and Service are simple observable categories.

That’s because it is a beginner’s stab to squeeze more out of non-artificial number crunching. There are of course considerably less gradations available in a score from a possible 10 than of a score from a possible 50. The reality is a simple one: my opinion after having met each girl reviewed. It’s not scientific, but it’s good fun!


Looks should, I think, also include a mention of whether the photos in the advert or other sources of expectation were accurate, but unless you happen to be blind as well as sex-goggled most people will agree that a film star is better looking than a fat middle-aged woman with acne and a hairy chin. But, as with all the categories, a rating only has meaning if it is compared to something. Prostitutes do not, believe me, look like film stars. So the easiest comparison-set is "other prostitutes. Now if the "other prostitutes" in your admittedly very small sample (out of tens of thousands) are all in the 8 to 10 range, then there is little point in having a ratings with more than three options.

Fake photos, I walk. So that isn’t important to me. I walk, girl will in all likely get a negative.


You could perhaps instead have "Good / neutral / poor." Another advantage of this IMHO would be it also avoids giving the false impression that such things can be judged with such a high degree of accuracy as to distinguish by a tenth of a degree. (I admit that there is also a common parlance between long-time international punters that uses a rough "out of ten" but not in a way to suggest that it is that accurate or any more than a personal rough estimation. Your reviews are really not in that vein.) Good/neutral/poor might be an easier option, as long as you spread them about a bit (if they are all going to be more or less equal then not much point in mentioning it though is there?)

Such things can be judged with pinpoint accuracy as I always take a highly sophisticated measuring instrument along to my punts. It’s called my cock.


Service is really about services received, whether services advertised were offered or refused, and whether the services received were performed "well". Again, if someone thinks every prostitute he has seen has given a good blowjob (out of good/neutral/poor) one has to ask, compared to what? His wife? Shaggy the sheepdog?

Ahh, the ‘services’ chestnut. I’ve yet to find a single girl who doesn’t provide that services in which I partake: chit chat, oral, kissing, cowgirl. Again, if I ever decide to become more adventurous, said review will include the salacious details.


Personality and Attitude are only really meaningful if battened down a bit. A prostitute's personality is actually either no business of punters; or else, if you happen to discover it outside of her working performance, not really relevant as it relates to her as Janet Thomson or whoever, not as "Selina Seductress the AW Shag" or "Selina Slag the High-Class Coutesan", who performs a service with whatever personality she can conjure up for the job. Easier to merge them into one and base a rating, (good, poor or neutral), on observable factors. Was she pleasant, polite, threw herself into the work? was she avoiding interacting much just doing it as if on a production line? was she downright rude, shortchanging on time, uncooperative over simple things, using her mobile phone during the time you had paid for? These are all useful to know.[/b]

Personality and attitude are more important than looks or services for me. For two reasons: if I don’t ‘like’ the girl in question, nothing is going to happen. Simple as. I’ll probably still pay her, but won’t necessarily touch her. The amateur socio-anthropologist in me enjoys the social part as much as the carnal – probably because the ‘sex part’ happens at least one a day with one girl or another regardless.



Venue & Comms is often mentioned, as a smelly bed with noisy people in the next room and a shitty or unsafe area that is hard to get to ruins a punt for some people. Comms just looks at how much time she wasted (or didn't) in setting up the appointment.

Yes, I usually make mention of the surroundings as I’m quite particular in preferring a comfortable incall.


UKP only has three categories for reviews. There's not much need for additional ratings although I personally think a note on the above lines is useful, especially confined to observable things. If I met another punter after a punt and we shared a pint, his experience might be worth a quick word: it only relates to one of many he has had and many I have had. So I'd probably expect him to say something like "Yeah, it was pretty good" or "It was ok, emptied my balls" or "Nah, it was a bit rubbish, best avoided." That for me would be three meaningful categories. If I asked him for more info (ie red the review beyond positive/neutral/negative) I'd probably want to know the sort of things mentioned above, just enough to bear in mind should I happen to think of seeing her in preference to many others. I won't take his opinion as gospel, just his opinion, but nice to know.

Vast detail about what you did with your knob might be entertaining for a few minutes in a crowd after a few beers. But I do know what a blow job is, thanks, without having it explained!

If and when there are specific forum guidelines for the composition and submission of punter reviews, I will of course abide by them. But as the rules are now very clear – reviewer discretion – I will post my reviews (fluffy or otherwise) as I see fit.

So whilst many may indeed prefer the typical:

‘I met her, I fucked her, I went home, it was good, I might go back’

…style of review. I do not.

What happened to the discussion about exactly how much a WG earns?

tcm

What happened to the discussion about exactly how much a WG earns?

tcm
I lost my track as well. Well i'm sure they earn more than PM. So i don't buy this rubbish "they live in poverty" anymore.  :hi:

Offline Alpunt79

What happened to the discussion about exactly how much a WG earns?

tcm

"Discussion"... it was mostly conjecture and bullshit unfortunately from what I've read of this thread. Not naming any names...

WHO CARES, they are adults and they don't care about us. So like i always say NEVER LOVE THESE HOES :music:. JUST FUCK EM, THEN LEAVE EM. :hi:
« Last Edit: January 22, 2015, 02:04:14 PM by grandaddybadman »

Offline west8

WH CARES, NEVER LOVE THESE HOES. JUST FUCK EM, THEN LEAVE EM.

Then forget to review them, eh?

Offline Marmalade

After carefully weighing the evidence on the thread  :hi: I've come to the conclusion that west is a fuckwit, though a very articulate one.

Looking at the well-tempered comments of people who are generally well-balanced, I'm inclined to the opinion that he is much worse than that.

west: I'm more than capable of answering clever arguments from fuckwits. Where there is some essential sincerity I am even still inclined to do so occasionally, or in more sophisticated company than you offer. My opinion is that you do not have any essential sincerity. That you are very much, as they say, completely up your own arse. Even if I were wrong, I do not owe you anything. I do not owe you, for instance, logical refutation of your arguments. Read a good textbook or sign up to an appropriate university course if one will have you. My time is my own and you appear to waste it, and a lot of other people's.

It is true that if people don't like your reviews or the things you write they can ignore them. Everyone has different tastes. So far, I know at least one person who likes your reviews, though I don't think that character has learnt anything from them of value. That person is you Sir. I would suggest you get a private intranet to admire yourself without bothering others, but it is a free country and I cannot force such suggestions on you.

Like you would know anything about being ‘switched on’, minitus. You can’t even read a five-point ratings scale for fucks sake! But thanks for responding on Quesadilla’s behalf. New troll in the house it would appear. You don’t need to reply to this post, but I have a feeling you won’t be able to help yourself.

This is from someone who's superior intelligence resulted in:

1. Fucking up your first AW booking with PC, which resulted in you blaming her and giving her a negative review and then arguing you were in the right when you were clearly a fool.

2. Booking a duo and getting the time wrong and then trying to blame the prossies when yet again it was your superior intellect that failed. Once again you wrote a negative review and wouldn't accept that you failed.

3. Getting into a questionable relationship with another prossie with apparent addiction issues, barebacking her and then giving her a negative review. You still failed to say whether this was a punt or a personal arrangement and you have avoided answering this.

4. Your so called 5 point scale was presented as a 4 point one, which seems to be what others gathered too so it's everyone else's fault but yours!

You then told a tale about a prossie by making reference to a punters meet during a specific period when she was the only person he had reviewed and then blamed him for mentioning her name in a question to you.

You are a weasel and everyone knows it. If not I am happy to be proved wrong for other on this forum to post their support on here.

I think almost everyone on here have the measure of you matey!

I think the title wanker of the year understates your character!
 :hi:

Offline west8

west: I'm more than capable of answering clever arguments from fuckwits.

Just not on this occasion, clearly. Hence the usual banal descent into perfidious name calling. More Marmite than Marmalade I would politely suggest.


<insert usual nonsense>

A wise man once said: "Avoid popularity if you would have peace."

Not that you would ever understand the words of a wise man of course.

Offline Cornish sub

Westurb8, you are an utter cunt. You're as welcome on here as a pork chop in a synagogue, so why don't you just fuck off and stop ruining this site with your purposely contentious, argumentative bollocks. And as you said to someone else in a post earlier, there's no need for you to reply to this, but you just won't be able to help yourself, you fuckwit cunt.

Offline akauya

You then told a tale about a prossie by making reference to a punters meet during a specific period when she was the only person he had reviewed and then blamed him for mentioning her name in a question to you.

That was the bit that pissed me off more than anything else. A few of us clocked early on what he was trying to do but because we spoiled his "surprise" he deflected attention/blame (after pages and pages of squirming) onto another punter who apparently "outed" the "popular" prossie who is living in "penury". FFS!

West8 you need help.


Offline fredpunter

That was the bit that pissed me off more than anything else. A few of us clocked early on what he was trying to do but because we spoiled his "surprise" he deflected attention/blame (after pages and pages of squirming) onto another punter who apparently "outed" the "popular" prossie who is living in "penury". FFS!

West8 you need help.

Strangely enough that pissed me off a bit as well  :lol:

But tonight I am off to see another popular wg who I suspect is a long way from penury and fully anticipate feeling much more relaxed in a few hours time. As my meeting with another poor waif last week got cancelled I'm well up for it. I hope she is well rested.

I think W8 is really that other annoying cunt Perez Hilton and he's smuggled a punter phone up his arse into the Big Brother house!

 :music:

Offline west8

That was the bit that pissed me off more than anything else. A few of us clocked early on what he was trying to do but because we spoiled his "surprise" he deflected attention/blame (after pages and pages of squirming) onto another punter who apparently "outed" the "popular" prossie who is living in "penury". FFS!

You must be referring to the 'surprise' financial details that I never had. Good point ...  :wacko:

I think W8 is really that other annoying cunt Perez Hilton and he's smuggled a punter phone up his arse into the Big Brother house!

 :music:

Absolutely bob on!

tcm

Offline socks

OP I'm trying to work out why, if it was obvious who the girl was to members who could be bothered to investigate, you didn't just say Michelle Independent reckons she doesn't break even? The options seems to be

-it wasn't obvious to you at the time that her identity would be worked out
-you hoped no one would identify her but you were itching to make the point about whore income
-you wanted to get her talked about but didn't want to be seen to be the one raising it
-you suspected everyone would join in the game of guess the prossie and that would be fun

Any of them close?
Fucking hell Westie, you've answered just about everybody else's questions and probably points that people weren't interested in your opinion on too but have ignored me when I wanted to know what you thought of mine. I'm feeling neglected  :cry:

He's touch and go with being banned so he'll hide for a bit and pop back when he feels it's safe once more! My prediction, although he will be burning to reply with an insult about intelligence or a mash-up of a forum name which he considers witty, like Bigus Thickus!   :rolleyes:

Offline Sedlmayer

The snake is now operating permanently at such a super cunt level that he actually makes me nostalgic for the Abdul days  :crazy: :wacko:


Offline west8

Fucking hell Westie, you've answered just about everybody else's questions and probably points that people weren't interested in your opinion on too but have ignored me when I wanted to know what you thought of mine. I'm feeling neglected  :cry:

Apologies socks, your post was lost in the melee of trolling.

The answer is: none of the above.

Offline rafatheira

Interesting thread.

I'd say cities like London and New York are very kind to wg's. For the good looking girls, 100k doesn't seem much of a stretch, for the stunners who are still relatively affordable (170-200 range) in London, I'd say double that. There's a few indie girls in London I've seen in the last few months who def pull 150+ by my estimation.
Fair play to them. Some of these girls are mind bogglingly stunning. I couldn't imagine fucking someone thrice my age for any sort of money.

Offline sam55

Interesting thread.

I'd say cities like London and New York are very kind to wg's. For the good looking girls, 100k doesn't seem much of a stretch, for the stunners who are still relatively affordable (170-200 range) in London, I'd say double that. There's a few indie girls in London I've seen in the last few months who def pull 150+ by my estimation.
Fair play to them. Some of these girls are mind bogglingly stunning. I couldn't imagine fucking someone thrice my age for any sort of money.

There's no-one alive that's twice my age, let alone thrice  :)

However, I totally agree with you. Was only thinking that yesterday with a gorgeous slim 19 year old bouncing up and down on my cock!  :P
« Last Edit: March 25, 2015, 08:56:18 AM by sam55 »

Offline 306

That was the bit that pissed me off more than anything else. A few of us clocked early on what he was trying to do but because we spoiled his "surprise" he deflected attention/blame (after pages and pages of squirming) onto another punter who apparently "outed" the "popular" prossie who is living in "penury". FFS!

West8 you need help.


some times its just too clear what a poster is trying to achieve
 but it normals works on here
start a thread with what do you think(about) ?
 and it draws 10 pages of what each reader thinks
 even though
 its the same three answers over and over.
answer is and i am guilty of this too ,
think before you post the same answer as already answered  :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash: :dash:
Banning reason: Constantly making nonsensical useless posts + Constantly ignoring admin requests


Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)