Printable View
[QUOTE=TampaDude250;4942571]This is a question for the regulars here. I did search the forum and didn't find any relevant info which is why I'm asking. Are there any grooming places in Tampa that will provide a HE? Go for a shave or wax down there and get a HE for a fee?
Sorry if this question is not in the right thread.[/QUOTE]Jen / Kayjen is massage and HE only, does manscaping too. Advertises on Adultlook, on Fletcher near 75, safe apartment?
[QUOTE=TampaMonger;4943082]No, I'm very familiar with collusion, and it's vastly overrated. Collusion requires a lot of organization and discipline. It's easier at the same spa, not so easy across spas in competition. Even at the same spa, tip negotiations happen behind close doors, and the impulse to cheat is strong, especially if the higher price is keeping customers away and reducing overall income. Remember, high prices only lead to high income if the guys are willing to pay them. But there are many who would rather do without the service altogether or would rather cum less frequently. If you do 4 guys a day at $40 a pop, you've made $1,120 in a week. If you double that price for the same service, you might get more like 1 per day, which is only $560 per week. You might argue that doubling the price won't reduce the number of customers that much. We know that isn't true, because otherwise they would do this. Every new customer brings in not only money but risk of arrest, so it's better to have fewer customers than more. The fact that they don't do this shows that the market will not bear the higher price under the current circumstances. Spa prices are a powerful balance between supply, demand, and risk. This is why door fees and service fees don't stray too far out of a standard range, except for premium service like Han River.
A few yahoos paying more aren't going to do squat, otherwise it would already have happened. The only thing that will change the standard price is a fundamental change in supply, demand, and / or risk, just like everything else in economics. Economists get many things wrong. This isn't one of them. The empirical and theoretical evidence for it is enormous and universally accepted except by a few discredited Marxists.
Bottom line: This is not a realistic worry. I'd worry more about a harder line by the cops or about spa girls being deported back to their own countries, changing the supply dynamic. [I]That[/I] would raise prices for sure.[/QUOTE]Direct your concerns to your police fear and let us worry about the economics. As for "collusion", you think these girls don't float around place to place? Even working under 1 company, they may have several locations so the word spreads intra-orgizationally. Then, the fact that many of them read this site, our posts also fuel the rise in expectations. So again, your attempt at applying standard economics does not fit this model.
[QUOTE=Skeot16;4921710]So I can confirm that this is the Mimi originally from Orange Spa and then Venus. I haven't seen her in about 5 years but she remembered me right away. She looks young but don't be fooled. She is easily in her early 40's but has an amazing body. Paid the same as Eagle and had a fantastic time. Will be back[/QUOTE]Thanks for letting me know. Lost track of Mimi Made an appointment at SPA 36. Mimi is extremely attractive. Had a fantastic time and will continue to go back.
While this has been an interesting debate. Anyone know where to find Coco? I've seen a couple reports for Coco's, but not sure they are The Coco. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Trav12;4944127]Thanks for letting me know. Lost track of Mimi Made an appointment at SPA 36. Mimi is extremely attractive. Had a fantastic time and will continue to go back.[/QUOTE]I think I saw this girl at Spa 36 back in late July, but I thought they were calling her "Minnie", which is a name I know I've seen there before (frankly, couldn't remember what Minnie looked like, so can't really confirm if it's the same girl). In any case, while the girl I saw at Spa 36 in late July was strikingly beautiful (even though she kept the mask on most of the time, except for CBJ in 69 and at the end when I ASKED to see her face as I was leaving), and had a near perfectly proportioned body for a taller girl, she DID seem a bit "loose" in the fitting, so to speak. I had a bit of a struggle to convince junior to go ahead and let go while sloshing about in the more than roomy confines of the crevice of pleasure.
[QUOTE=BradentonBob;4944114]Direct your concerns to your police fear and let us worry about the economics. As for "collusion", you think these girls don't float around place to place? Even working under 1 company, they may have several locations so the word spreads intra-orgizationally. Then, the fact that many of them read this site, our posts also fuel the rise in expectations. So again, your attempt at applying standard economics does not fit this model.[/QUOTE]Let's agree to disagree. I'm not going to have a debate about economics in here. If you're keen to debate some more, PM me or suggest a forum on this site where we could debate this openly. I enjoy debate as long as it's civil.
[QUOTE=TampaMonger;4943082]The only thing that will change the standard price is a fundamental change in supply, demand, and / or risk, just like everything else in economics. Economists get many things wrong. This isn't one of them.
. [I]That[/I] would raise prices for sure.[/QUOTE]If your theory were true without exception. I'd be FS banging K-girls for a fraction of the price I was back in the 80's when there were far fewer parlors / providers in operation than currently.
[QUOTE=SMegmaMonster;4946002]If your theory were true without exception. I'd be FS banging K-girls for a fraction of the price I was back in the 80's when there were far fewer parlors / providers in operation than currently.[/QUOTE]So let's see, there were fewer parlors, and you're saying the price was higher. That's pretty much exactly what standard econ would predict and exactly what I'm saying. Bigger supply = lower price. Lower supply = higher price.
But who knows? Maybe prostitution is a special case in labor economics that's different from all other types of labor. I don't see anything about it that's different from anything else, but you guys should write a treatise on it and submit it to the QJE.
[QUOTE=TampaMonger;4945267]Let's agree to disagree. I'm not going to have a debate about economics in here. If you're keen to debate some more, PM me or suggest a forum on this site where we could debate this openly. I enjoy debate as long as it's civil.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BradentonBob;4944114]Direct your concerns to your police fear and let us worry about the economics. As for "collusion", you think these girls don't float around place to place? Even working under 1 company, they may have several locations so the word spreads intra-orgizationally. Then, the fact that many of them read this site, our posts also fuel the rise in expectations. So again, your attempt at applying standard economics does not fit this model.[/QUOTE]I have to wonder if the girls lie to each other about the tips that they "get" as much as mongers like to fabricate about the tips they "gave".
Rule No. 1 Everybody Lies. House MD. Monger, "I fucked her in the ass bareback for an hour and only gave 20!" AMP Girl, "I only give white devil tuggy tuggy and got 100!
[QUOTE=Rico7;4946743]I have to wonder if the girls lie to each other about the tips that they "get" as much as mongers like to fabricate about the tips they "gave".[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TampaMonger;4946559]So let's see, there were fewer parlors, and you're saying the price was higher[/QUOTE]No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Just the opposite, the price was lower in the 80's (FS for $50-$80) and if your supply / demand theory held as true as you insist, the price would be lower given the increase in number of parlors / providers.
[QUOTE=SMegmaMonster;4947149], the price would be lower given the increase in number of parlors / providers.[/QUOTE]Meaning the current prices would be lower.
[QUOTE=Brasky;4946819]Rule No. 1 Everybody Lies. House MD. Monger, "I fucked her in the ass bareback for an hour and only gave 20!" AMP Girl, "I only give white devil tuggy tuggy and got 100![/QUOTE]Too funny... Exactly.
[QUOTE=SMegmaMonster;4947149]No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Just the opposite, the price was lower in the 80's (FS for $50-$80) and if your supply / demand theory held as true as you insist, the price would be lower given the increase in number of parlors / providers.[/QUOTE]$50 in 1985 is the equivalent of $120 in 2020.80 1985 dollars are the equivalent of just under $200 today.
[QUOTE=TampaMonger;4948284]$50 in 1985 is the equivalent of $120 in 2020.80 1985 dollars are the equivalent of just under $200 today.[/QUOTE]Not the K-girl dollars. Fish heads, rice, and kim-chee have not been subject to the level of inflation you have anally extracted. They also still sleep in a back room at the parlor, no rent, no insurance, no cost of useless degree in economics. Etc, etc.