Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Can a lady become an ATF if she only allows CBJ or does not allow CIM?
test
Main Discussion Forum - NationalGeneral discussions, but not limited to your local scene. (For staff assistance, contact your local moderator, or see the "Emails to the Staff" post in the Questions for the Staff forum in each city)
I agree that ATF is a partner that excites and ignites your juices and your erotic side.. hopefully for both parties.. it so much more fulfilling than just doing you business.. and walking away. I really enjoy my partner to be interested and to appear to be excited by my touches and my words.. and i want that in returned if possible .. to be my ATF
If wives gave BBBJNQNS BJ's, the hobby industry might suffer.
That said, many of us seek what we don't get at home. So.....to answer your question, probably not. The lady would have to excel in other areas to attain such status.
You're right I do have my beliefs. Good bad or indifferent. I shouldn't be punished for speculating that there are some lonely guys out there that enjoy the companionship with some of these ladies and are willing to spend big money just to talk. I'm also sure ladies are voting as well. I'm entitled to my opinion and beliefs? Am I not just like EVERONE else? And just because I don't do it or like it doesn't make it wrong. I also don't pay for off the clock time either. Seems like buying a friend to me but who am I to judge others. If guys want to pay $200-$500 per hour for companionship by all means go for it.
I made it pretty clear in post #17 I was surprised by the posts and perhaps the amount of guys do don't agree with me. I attacked no one. Except GN when she felt it necessary to call my thread "retarded" (In Her Opinion) Post #8. Well I went on to share a little bit more about how I felt and she didn't seem to like "my opinion". I can't imagine why? Perhaps next time she might consider sharing her opinion or beliefs without attacking someone by using the word "retarded".
Please quit implying I said things you know I didn't say. Of course you are allowed your opinion--I never said or implied otherwise. You did, however, make some backhanded comments that votes for the first option are of dubious gender, and you hinted that if men wrote reviews of a BBBJ session then they were being less than honest if they also said BBBJ wasn't critical for an ATF. No, you did not use those words, but that was the relatively clear message.
You of all hobbyist have a history of enjoying SUPER HOT providers. I might ignore their menus to have the opportunity to meet and enjoy BCD activities with them for that reason alone. But chances are about 100% if they were CBJ or no CIM they would NOT become ATF'S. At least not in my book. I know there are many ladies out there that expand their menus for frequent flyers and some dangle that carrot in front of the prospective hobbyist nose to gain more business and never follow through. I guess it boils down to "why" someone is spending time with a hooker.....NO?
The reason that this thread has gone awry is that you tried to tie a subjective characterization (ATF) to certain objective menu items. According to you, if a girl doesn't allow CIM she can't be an ATF. The correct statement is that she can't be your ATF and that has little value to anyone other than you and your ATF.
I will agree with you that anyone who sees a hooker for purely personal/emotional reasons has left the Hobby reservation but I don't understand other posters to mean that that is the sole reason why someone is an ATF.
You last sentence deals with the elemental question of "why" someone would see a hooker. Since you mentioned my ATF, I will tell you why I spend time with her. Ms. AD throughout her career has waxed and waned between being a safety (CBJ) girl and providing BBBJ. In fact, she has waxed and waned with me in a single session and I don't bother trying to figure out which way the wind/she is blowing on a given day. But these things never change: She is flat out gorgeous; she is funny and entertaining, she loves to f#ck,Greek is a favored activity, and she laughs at my jokes. I treat her like a princess and she tolerates me with good humor.
Do I get better treatment than others? Probably, but from reading her reviews few guys are complaining about the menu or the level of performance. So that composite of virtues, a meshing of personal and sexual styles and a positive history makes her my ATF. But do we have a personal relationship? Hardly, and I am not looking to establish one. Why make it personal and screw up a good thing?
I don't think I'll have anything more to say about this topic.
Please quit implying I said things you know I didn't say. Of course you are allowed your opinion--I never said or implied otherwise. You did, however, make e an on some backhanded comments that votes for the first option are of dubious gender, and you hinted that if men wrote reviews of a BBBJ session then they were being less than honest if they also said BBBJ wasn't critical for an ATF. No, you did not use those words, but that was the relatively clear message.
You're welcome to interpret things anyway you wish. What I found in men's reviews were observations and nothing more. What I said is exactly what I mean. The rest is speculation and conjecture.
The reason that this thread has gone awry is that you tried to tie a subjective characterization (ATF) to certain objective menu items. According to you, if a girl doesn't allow CIM she can't be an ATF. The correct statement is that she can't be your ATF and that has little value to anyone other than you and your ATF.
I will agree with you that anyone who sees a hooker for purely personal/emotional reasons has left the Hobby reservation but I don't understand other posters to mean that that is the sole reason why someone is an ATF.
You last sentence deals with the elemental question of "why" someone would see a hooker. Since you mentioned my ATF, I will tell you why I spend time with her. Ms. AD throughout her career has waxed and waned between being a safety (CBJ) girl and providing BBBJ. In fact, she has waxed and waned with me in a single session and I don't bother trying to figure out which way the wind/she is blowing on a given day. But these things never change: She is flat out gorgeous; she is funny and entertaining, she loves to f#ck,Greek is a favored activity, and she laughs at my jokes. I treat her like a princess and she tolerates me with good humor.
Do I get better treatment than others? Probably, but from reading her reviews few guys are complaining about the menu or the level of performance. So that composite of virtues, a meshing of personal and sexual styles and a positive history makes her my ATF. But do we have a personal relationship? Hardly, and I am not looking to establish one. Why make it personal and screw up a good thing?
I don't think I'll have anything more to say about this topic.
I totally agree. My opinion is certainly not shared by the masses as the poll plainly depicts. Please let's remember the original post was in the form of a question.
Shit I thought this was an opinion poll. First we have the my opinion is the only one that counts provider trying to make her intelligence sound superior(fail) Then I see STILL getting pissed which I can tell you hardly ever happens. He is usually the one that trys to get everybody to get along. Fuck dudes and dudettes is just a fucking poll. let everyone have their opinion. That's what a poll is. If someone says the only way she could be a ATF is to have three fucking tits then that's an opinion. If we are going to get pissed then at least make it one that the donations are getting too high and the traveling providers have golden pussy syndrome or my dick is too small. Those get me going. lol Oh yea. In my opinion a provider has to do bbbj cim and greek to be one of my atf's. I'm just fucking weird that way.
Why are you so intent on beating the poor carcass that died years ago? And so myopic on this point that you are letting your fixation seriously interfere with your thinking? I was about to not reply, but for many years my job has been picking apart seriously flawed arguments and that part of me wouldn't let such a seriously flawed statement as this one stand without rebuttal.
First, you set the poll up in a biased fashion. Eight choices provided, one option clearly stating the opposite to your premise, one sort of neutral, and SIX stating one form of your premise or another. The eight options are far from mutually exclusive. Then you set it up so people can vote for multiples. Nothing wrong with that—until you try to apply some simple arithmetic totaling and claim the numbers then have a blatantly incorrect meaning. Anyone who votes for “No CIM is a deal breaker for me” is very, very likely to also vote for “NO WAY would I have an ATF that didn't allow CIM”. Nothing inherently evil about that (and yes, any guy who feels that way is perfectly entitled to do so). HOWEVER when you add those numbers up and claim they represent separate people believing a certain way, that is a fraudulent representation.
At the time I am looking at this there are 62 people who have voted. Earlier this morning (after your post) there were 60 tallied voters (yes, I am assuming the software does unbiasedly count). So obviously it is untrue that 62 of 60 thought any way at all.
So what CAN we actually elicit from the poll? As of the time I am writing this:
25 of 62 clearly disagree with your premise, they voted “Sure she can”.
2 are in the gray area of “if the money is right”
So somewhere between 25 and 27 think a lady could be someone’s ATF even though BBBJ and/or CIM is off the menu.
Rather than try to figure out where the non-exclusive votes were for the other six options it is much easier to just subtract those 25 or 27 from the total number of voters, since one can reasonably assume whoever voted for one or more of the other six options believes either BBBJ or CIM or both is needed for a lady to be anyone’s ATF.
Therefore it seems the tally is much closer to:
--26 think a lady can be an ATF without providing BBBJ/CIM
--36 disagree, and there is an uncertainty of +/- 1 voter.
I am not quite sure what useful conclusion one can draw, but your conclusions do not logically follow, even from this small sample.
Then when you take a leap to say “62 Thinck Services Are Important”, that too is a logical disconnect beyond the number. No, it says 36 +/-1 think BBBJ/CIM matters. It may well be that some, most, or even all of the 26 +/-1 believe “services” are important, they just value other services that differ from the ones you put in the poll. Had you actually worded it as "services" instead of a few specific services you may have had even a larger majority aligning with your opinion.
We won’t even delve into the structural flaw of saying the poll is about ATFs when the way the options are worded is far more about whether a guy would even see a lady unless she offered certain services.
I strongly suspect you will reply, you seem to be someone who does not like to pass on having the last word it these situations (which is not intended as an attack, just a statement of observation). If you do, please note that I am making few if any statements about you, but yes, I am taking serious exception to the soundness of your augments and some sloppy use of language.
Why are you so intent on beating the poor carcass that died years ago? And so myopic on this point that you are letting your fixation seriously interfere with your thinking? I was about to not reply, but for many years my job has been picking apart seriously flawed arguments and that part of me wouldn't let such a seriously flawed statement as this one stand without rebuttal.
First, you set the poll up in a biased fashion. Eight choices provided, one option clearly stating the opposite to your premise, one sort of neutral, and SIX stating one form of your premise or another. The eight options are far from mutually exclusive. Then you set it up so people can vote for multiples. Nothing wrong with that—until you try to apply some simple arithmetic totaling and claim the numbers then have a blatantly incorrect meaning. Anyone who votes for “No CIM is a deal breaker for me” is very, very likely to also vote for “NO WAY would I have an ATF that didn't allow CIM”. Nothing inherently evil about that (and yes, any guy who feels that way is perfectly entitled to do so). HOWEVER when you add those numbers up and claim they represent separate people believing a certain way, that is a fraudulent representation.
At the time I am looking at this there are 62 people who have voted. Earlier this morning (after your post) there were 60 tallied voters (yes, I am assuming the software does unbiasedly count). So obviously it is untrue that 62 of 60 thought any way at all.
So what CAN we actually elicit from the poll? As of the time I am writing this:
25 of 62 clearly disagree with your premise, they voted “Sure she can”.
2 are in the gray area of “if the money is right”
So somewhere between 25 and 27 think a lady could be someone’s ATF even though BBBJ and/or CIM is off the menu.
Rather than try to figure out where the non-exclusive votes were for the other six options it is much easier to just subtract those 25 or 27 from the total number of voters, since one can reasonably assume whoever voted for one or more of the other six options believes either BBBJ or CIM or both is needed for a lady to be anyone’s ATF.
Therefore it seems the tally is much closer to:
--26 think a lady can be an ATF without providing BBBJ/CIM
--36 disagree, and there is an uncertainty of +/- 1 voter.
I am not quite sure what useful conclusion one can draw, but your conclusions do not logically follow, even from this small sample.
Then when you take a leap to say “62 Thinck Services Are Important”, that too is a logical disconnect beyond the number. No, it says 36 +/-1 think BBBJ/CIM matters. It may well be that some, most, or even all of the 26 +/-1 believe “services” are important, they just value other services that differ from the ones you put in the poll. Had you actually worded it as "services" instead of a few specific services you may have had even a larger majority aligning with your opinion.
We won’t even delve into the structural flaw of saying the poll is about ATFs when the way the options are worded is far more about whether a guy would even see a lady unless she offered certain services.
I strongly suspect you will reply, you seem to be someone who does not like to pass on having the last word it these situations (which is not intended as an attack, just a statement of observation). If you do, please note that I am making few if any statements about you, but yes, I am taking serious exception to the soundness of your augments and some sloppy use of language.
Professor T... first off you crack me up. I'm certain you're serious and even follow your line of thinking. What I don't understand / comprehend is your effort in trying to prove "me" wrong. I'm not wrong for the way I feel nor are others including you for your opinions. You may totally disagree with me and the poll and that's OK. Let's try and get "one" thing straight. There are NO FLAWS in someone's opinion. Now T put your hands on your computer screen and "feel" the warmth of my sincerity. Relax, take your shoes off and get your ATF over to give you a nice BBBJCIMNQNS.
...and T go ahead and have the final word. I'm good!
Professor T... first off you crack me up. I'm certain you're serious and even follow your line of thinking. What I don't understand / comprehend is your effort in trying to prove "me" wrong. I'm not wrong for the way I feel nor are others including you for your opinions. You may totally disagree with me and the poll and that's OK. Let's try and get "one" thing straight. There are NO FLAWS in someone's opinion. Now T put your hands on your computer screen and "feel" the warmth of my sincerity. Relax, take your shoes off and get your ATF over to give you a nice BBBJCIMNQNS.
...and T go ahead and have the final word. I'm good!
You truly don't get it.
It has never been about your opinion. It is about your ability to count and your use of the English language--both of which get a D in this thread. If you see nothing wrong with that, not much I can do.
Can a lady become an ATF if she only allows CBJ or does not allow CIM? So many times I get ladies asking me "why" do guys only see me once? Well here is your answer... and for fun we will make it a poll.
Note: Vote on all that apply
I'm guessing the original premise of this entire discussion originated from the question posed to you "Why do guys only see me once?" You replied "here is your answer" and then offered the poll as the answer - which sort of back-fired on you, and never answered the original question.
I'm assuming you answered them with "because you dont offer bbbj or cim", meaning that a return client depends on service... the poll AND responses prove this to be entirely false
My experience: I do not advertise ANY services, yet I have steady, repeat business... actual activities during my sessions vary to a great degree, tailored to the needs of each client... so again, its not about menu... its about how he feels when he leaves my presence... proving your assertions false.
Reviews: I read a LOT of them. The ones that tickle me the most are the guys who state emphatically in one post that cbj is a deal-breaker, only to later offer up a review of an encounter that included cbj and declare her his unexpected atf. I find these every day, also proving your assertion false.
Original Question: Why do guys only see me once?
Answer:
1. Men love variety; even if you made his head spin and toes curl, it could take him up to a year to return, if he ever does - proper marketing helps with this
2. Maybe he didnt get what he was REALLY wanting from the encounter. This is rarely due to a missing menu item, proven by the fact that he scheduled time with you to begin with, despite certain activities not being offered. No, usually it was that the encounter, overall, was not what he expected - didn't fit his expectations. Reading reviews help with this. Asking the client directly what he is hoping for also helps. Assuming that all clients are the same is as silly as the OP's original assertion. Sometimes two people just don't click.
3. Hone your skills - maybe what you offered just wasn't all that good. A hot body can only get you so far. Polish up your grooming. Practice proper etiquette. Practice flirting. Get feedback from ex's, get a practice-buddy, etc. Back to the original example of cbj, that is a very specialized skill in and of itself, much more difficult to pull off than a bbbj - practice makes perfect.
Also, ladies should not be asking clients business management questions - it's tacky and unprofessional. And clients have no business offering such advice - unless he has worked as a male companion himself. Asking a client what HE wants in an encounter is acceptable. Asking him how you should run your own business is just asinine.
Guys, if a newer lady starts asking you these types of questions, just send her to the ladies boards, or to your own ATF
