The £400 an hour girl is 'elite' or 'exclusive' because of exactly those words - she excludes a certain demographic from her client base . . .
Wrong. Nice attempt at trying to redefine "Elite". You don't get to redefine the meaning of the term to suit you own analysis. It is to be given its own normal meaning. And in the land of sex-selling, it is a synonym for "expensive" (read: overpriced).
And therefore she appeals to the gentleman who can afford her rates, and who sees Value For Money at £400 per hour . . .
Utter tosh. On so many levels. Prices in this game do not exclude or ensure certain classes of punter. Ever heard of saving? Quite a few punters on here are of lower income but save for higher priced WGs. As a more general point, anyone who thinks a WG offers VFM at £400ph is just a fool. And I say that as someone who could very well afford that price but has enough experience to know there is no positive correlation between cost and service when hiring a prostitute. Only simplistic third-party touts (or WGs touting themselves) hang on to your line of fallacious reasoning. We see it on here all the time (and usually they end up banned for the reasons I have already mentioned).
a) she is not seeing more than one client a day. And if she only sees one a week, even better.
b) she is either at university or has another job - promotes the girlfriend illusion, rather than the 'piece of meat' UKP viewpoint.
c) he does not have to share her with persons of a lower social class (there are seven social classes identified today).
d) she may be more stunningly beautiful i.e. model looks.
e) and - maybe the most compelling - she is unavailable to the majority!
(1) I don't give a shit if she has a brain like Stephen Hawking - I'm there for the vagina, not her amygdala. (2) prostitution by definition is meat for hire. Without the meat part, it would not be prostitution. You sound strangely similar to those muppets who were banned from touting and creating multiple accounts in support of that overpriced "elite" average looking Irish girl earlier this week. (3) if you don't like the UKP viewpoint, get back to sipping your babycham over at PH. We won't miss you.
The other major difference in viewpoints between the 'Elite Denial' brigade and the 'Elite Seeking' bunch, are their expectations of the encounter.
Bollocks. Google "cost benefit analysis". Or ask one of your "university" attending WG friends to explain it to you.
Believe it or not, UKP member, when they say 'treat her well, it could possibly be that they connected well, had great chemistry, and enjoyed the social time, the conversation, the sexual tension in the air over dinner, the whole build-up, as well as the actual private time. Whereas the typical UKP member (not all), is just there to see now many positions he can do in the 59 minutes and 30 seconds remaining after walking into the room.
(1) No. When someone writes "treat her well" it means, they are a fluffy cunt without imagination and are just following the prose of the last fluffy cunt with no imagination, who followed the prose of the last fluffy cunt with no imagination. We don't go for that shit on here because it is utter meaningless garbage. We understand it is very common on that garbage site PN.
(2) the "typical" UK member is honest about punting. He goes there to empty his sack into a whore. All of this other imagined, aspirational, social status crap you bang on about is merely the delusional fantasy of an individual who has to pay to have a social life - it is clear that guys on UKP are a bit better grounded than your PN or C69 fantasist.
Another thought . . .
Do you have to? Actually, not much thinking was involved prior to those words, I think you flatter yourself too much.
if the incredibly low opinion you have of these WG's that is so frequently expressed, is genuine, then why on earth do you then proceed to share an hour of intimacy with her? Is it because she is a piece of meat? And if so, I presume you do not speak to her - or if you do, do you address her in the same descriptive terminology as you used on the forum a day or two earlier?
You write like a woman. I suspect you are one. You can't have it both ways love, on the one had you say we do as "many positions he can do in the 59 minutes and 30" and on the other hand you state we go for "an hour of intimacy" - a very female analysis. The ability to hold two views at once is particularly common among women, and muppets.
I did find it amusing that . . .
Oh - la-de-fucking-da, we don't care about you or what you find amusing. Nice try at being superior. You come off as a jack-ass.
my earlier post provoked such personal virulence . . .
I think 'ridicule' is the word you were looking for. You're welcome.
Thanks - I enjoyed that.
Somehow I doubt it. Which is why you mentioned it.
Finally I expect to receive a further dose of fine prose from some of UKP's more linguistically-challenged members - however a) I will not be responding (see first paragraph) and b) such expletive-filled commentary will only serve to confirm my analysis.
Thank fuck for that. They are missing you on PN. Off you trot.