Naming Her, and What the Reply Can and Cannot Say

There are twenty-three profiles on the roster and each of them carries a district, the languages she works in, the formats she offers, the hours she keeps and the complete set of figures. The intended way to use all that is to read, choose, and put a name in your first message.

What happens next is narrower than most people expect, and the narrowness is deliberate.

The reply answers about her

Whether she has room at the hour you asked for. What applies in euro for the shape of booking you described. What the room will need. And where a front half is asked for, the arrangement for it.

Those four answers are the entire reply. If she has room, you have a booking to confirm. If she does not, you are told so plainly and the thread stops at that point.

What it will not do

It will not put somebody else forward in her place. No alternative name arrives unasked, no list of who else is around that evening, no gentle steer towards a different profile.

This surprises people, and occasionally irritates them, so the reasoning is worth stating. Choosing who comes to your room is not a decision the house should be making on your behalf. A guest who has read the roster and settled on one person has done something specific, and answering that with a substitute treats the choice as interchangeable when it plainly was not. So the thread hands the decision back.

What you do with it is entirely open. A great many people simply ask about a different hour for the same person, which is the move most likely to work. Others go back to the roster and name somebody else, and that is an ordinary second message rather than a concession.

How to ask the question so it is answerable

Name one person, give an hour, give a length, and add a fallback if you have one. Something like: Grace, Thursday at nine, two hours; if that hour is gone, anything from eight to eleven on Thursday or Friday.

A message written that way usually resolves in one exchange, because the fallback gives the reply something to work with. A message that names three people at once and asks who is free is harder to answer usefully and tends to produce a thread that takes longer.

The question guests actually want to ask

It comes out sideways, most often as a request for a recommendation. Underneath it is nearly always the same worry, which is whether there is somebody on the roster who is particularly comfortable with a heavier, older, taller or scarred guest.

The honest answer is that the question rests on a false premise. Adult bodies of every build are the ordinary material of this work, and there is no subset of the roster that specialises in them, because there is nothing to specialise in. Nobody is going to be encountering something unusual.

What does vary between profiles, and what is worth choosing on, is pace. Some work slowly and treat the opening stretch as a long settling; others are more direct. For a guest who is nervous, that difference matters considerably more than anything else on the profile, and it is described in the writing rather than listed as a feature.

What the profile will not tell you

How she feels about your body, and that is a deliberate omission rather than an oversight. A line of that kind would be a reassurance written in advance for a person nobody has met, which is worth nothing. What the profiles carry instead is factual: where she works from, what she offers, when she is available, and what it costs.

The rest is arranged in the thread, in writing, before anyone travels, which is the only place it can usefully be settled.

Timing the question

Availability is the one thing in a thread that a day of delay can change, and it changes fastest in the weeks when the city is full. If you have chosen somebody and are waiting until you feel ready to write, it is worth seeing what you are waiting on: the deliberating happens in the same fortnight the hour is taken by somebody else. Writing early commits you to nothing, since nothing is held until an hour is agreed and the front half arranged.