Do homely girls try harder?

Another ? that seems to be at work here, is "Can one get good mileage from best looking dancer in the house, or must one settle for homely girl"? Myself, I don't buy dances from homely dancers, conversely, I've bought several from midrange looks dancers. Lapdances are a "head game", to a large degree. I can derive more satisfaction from a medium mileage dance with a very attractive dancer conveying just the right nuances, vs a mechanical HJ or whatever from a fuglie. I've observed better looking dancers with the attitude of "I'm good looking, so I don't have to do much", yet I've also had pleasant surprises from good lookers.

Again, I think it matters a great deal how well lighted the place is. I've been in a many clubs where between the lack of lighting and massive amounts of makeup and a few beers it was virtually imposible to figure out what the girl's face looked like, I'd never recognize her on the street. But there's never any doubt about the body.

Throughout this thread I've assumed homely to mean unattractive in both face and body. I don't really draw a distinction between the two. A hot body with an ugly face doesn't impress me. A beautiful face with a less than perfect body will at least have a chance with me.

I have had some experience in this area. SOme of my best experiences have been with less than stellar beauties. In NJ there was a place near the prison in Rahway. There were knockouts in there and they had a cool LD VIP area with some privacy. The knockouts would be all tip me tip me tip me and eventually would settle down to a dull grind...literally. There was a little Hispanic chic with the best titties and a heart shaped ass. She had a sort of messed up face, like she had a lot of acne as a kid, craters and stuff. She danced a lot in the less lit area and got tipped well but never seemed to do much VIP action. She was nice and all and we talked, so I asked her about it. She said that guys wanted a pretty face looking at them. I said that I wanted to see the TOP of a womans head, not her face. She laughed and I said i was serious. I was like 19 at the time at got my first and only all out BBBJ. She was like crazy whenI said we should do a VIP. After a while I started going JUST to see her, I mean dfamn she had GREAT titties and her ass would stop you across the room when she was onstage, then she'd turn around. I did get to bang her about half a dozen times. I never suggested it, but it was always from behind, she knew I liked her ass and she used to like to ride. One of those blurrey area where you think you might get the chic off..and you might even care...just a little...later on the next day. Anyway, the ugly one did rock my world. Here in the south I notice that mainly the black girls have that work ethic. A lot of them have nice bodies but a face that makes you shudder. Almost all of the sisters I have given just an ounce of interest to that I KNOW don't get interest from other patrons go the extra mile for me. I have one dancer who regularly will shut the door and not wait for me to sit, just kneels down and gets me off! She appreciates it that much. A little attention is cheaper than paying more for something faker...besides once you get your nut do you really worry about where it went?

Absotively. Ive got some of my best dances from girls that I wasn't attracted to. You know they went the extra mile to ask me. Sit down and talk, have a drink, and then give the best LD ever. But its not always true tho.

Chandler, I was once pretty friendly with two different dancers who had dynamite bodies and plain faces. In fact I once told one of them, who was giving me a lap dance at the time, that she had the most perfect body I had ever seen. I meant it too. Funny thing is that if I had first met either one of these girls fully clothed without knowing what was underneath, I'd have probably thought of them as homely. So I guess we don't always know, do we? Seems to me I've seen a lot of dancers that are like that - knockouts inside the club when naked, but pretty homely outside the club when fully clothed. Anyway, these two girls both tried pretty hard, so I don't know whether that proves or disproves the original thesis.

FONDL, I would say it neither proves nor disproves the thesis. Opinions of those dancer's homeliness or good looks are bound to be too widely diverse. I think it bears more on the question of how you rate attractiveness.

FONDL, homely applies to a person's whole appearance, not just the face.

I think of "homely" as meaning a woman with unappealing facial features, eg. big nose etc. According to my dictionery, it's a synonym for "plain" which is maybe a little different but still conveys the idea of a face that isn't particularly attractive. In any case it says nothing about the rest of her, it's a characteristic of her face only. So to me a homely dancer can be very different from a fugly one (of course she could be both.) As I said before, I've known several homely dancers who were very popular because they had bodies to die for, but I've never known a fugly who was especially popular. Which raises another question, but rather than hijack this subject maybe I'll start a new one.

Homely was just the word Bones had used. I take it to mean sort of neutral on the attractiveness scale. Plain looking, not downright ugly. In Britain, BTW, homely means comfortable and familiar, like home. It's a positive, although modestly so, and I don't think it's applied to people's appearance.

Yoda, I know of places like that too, joints full of fuglies doing extras (although elsewhere didn't we sort of agree that they aren't extras if that's the norm for the club?). But I think that raises a chicken-and-egg-type question. Are the girls working in the extras club doing extras because they're fulgie and have to try harder, or because the only kind of place that will hire them almost requires them to do extras? Which came first, the fuglie or the extra?

I also think we need to make a distinction here between grossly overweight or overage women, and homely women with nice bodies. I avoid the first category like the plague, but I'm often willing to play with one of the latter types and have had some great times doing so, especially in dark clubs. My guess is that the former have to try harder to make any money or have to work in an extras type place to work at all, but the latter do very well without any extra effort, especially if they have a decent pesonality too. I've known two homely dancers who had great bodies and nice personalities who did very well without giving any extras. So maybe "homely" isn't really what we're talking about here.

I think a smart dancer-attractive or not-knows what she has to do to earn well in whatever environment she is working in. The downside to being less attractive is of course that a lot of guys are going to say no even if you offer them FS for $20. Getting turned down a lot will put anyone in a bad mood.

I think I understand it better now. I believe it depends on whether you go into a club looking for whoever is willing to perform specific extras. That's SO not my approach, I hadn't really considered it. I look for the hottest girl I can find. Unless her attitude turns me off or she seems like an airdance type, I'll give her a try. I take what she offers, and I'll push a little to take things farther, but not with a particular goal. For me, the best looking girls tend to give the best dances, with the most mileage. The lower down the scale I go, which isn't far, the poorer the results become. What I've observed of the homelier girls' dances doesn't make it look like I'm missing out.

Do better looking girls not try as hard? I don't believe so. In any other field, people with a natural gift enjoy using it and working it for all it's worth. It's true in academics, sports, entertainment, so why not in lap dancing?

Chandler: I can tell you that my observations would indicate that homely girls do often do more. One club in particular in Providence is flooded with dancers who are either too fat, too old or too stupid to be dancing. By coincidence this club is known as being pretty much an extras club. There are private booths where full service sex is the norm. Not every girl is ugly and not every ugly girl fucks in the booths but these are women who could never get work in the areas better clubs. They are doing more than their attractive counterparts have to in other clubs.

Going with a "homely" dancer is normal done right after thinking with the wrong head. For me, a good grab and a whispering in the ear of "I want to....." will sometimes do it.

Yoda: I'm trying to get anybody to say WHY they believe there is a tradeoff between looks and mileage. I've never seen any reason to think so. I'm trying to understand how that belief becomes so popular. I'm with you and FONDL, in that I'm sticking with the lookers, but it's not about what we prefer. Again, sucking nipples is only an EXAMPLE of a goal-oriented mindset that might have better luck with desperate, homely girls.

I don't have any problem with a general theory that says that less attractive women may have to try harder to make money and are therefore more likely to give higher mileage. But I personally have no evidence to support the theory because I prefer to spend my time and money on the more attractive girls, and I don't care if someone else in the club may give higher mileage, that's not important to me. I find that intimate activities like boob sucking are more a function of the club than of any specific type of girl.

Chandler: I'm not sure what you are trying to get us to say here. I've sucked on the nipples of some extremely beautiful women. I haven't sucked on the nipples of any homely women because I don't buy dances from homely women. Does every gorgeous dancer I meet let me suck on her nipples? No, of course not but that's not the only reason I'm buying a dance from her so it's not a deal breaker. Homely women may very well try harder but I don't care, I'm having no trouble getting what I want from the good looking ones.

A few girls who aren't getting as many dances may try harder. If I don't find the girl somewhat attractive, I'm not going to get any dance from her. I have on a few occasions gotten a dance from an average looking girl but she may have really put the charm on. I'm more generous if I'm in a good mood and been left alone for a while. If the girls looks good or just ok, sits in my lap, is nice and charming, then I might get a dance. If a hot looking girl with an attitude problem comes over to me, I'll send her off.

Of course there have been a few dancers who I was not interested in getting any dance from at any price. Not even if they paid me. If they try real hard, it gets annoying real fast.

I'm very visual, so for me, looks reign supreme. If I have to close my eyes to mentally replace the "5" I'm getting an HM dance from with the image of a "9", I might as well stay at home, take matters into my own hand(s), & save myself the money. When it comes to paying for extras, my hand(s) are quite reasonable. They never overcharge.

chandler: And the support for your premise goes beyond general assertions?

I only brought up my own preferences as a possible explanation for the contradictory answers to the topic question. As a contrast, I shouldn't have said a guy looking for a handjob. Just so we can leave escorts out of it, let's say he's looking to suck on nipples during lapdances. As for which I would choose, looks or mileage, I don't accept the premise that I have to choose between one or the other. And I've yet to see anybody support this premise with anything but general assertions.

Why don't more men try escorts?

I also prefer the young girl-next-door type. And I'd much rather get a low-to-medium contact dance from a girl I find really attractive (both looks and personality) than get much higher mileage from a less attractive girl. And I totally agree with Yoda, if my objective was sex or super high mileage, I'd skip the club route entirely and hire an attractive escort.

I'll never find out for sure since I don't buy dances from dancers that I'm not attracted to. I tend to go for more "girl next door" types (even though I'd have to move to Brazil for them to really be next door) rather than girls with a lot of enhancement, big hair too much make up. The dancer's attitude has more to do with how good her dances are regardless of what she looks like. I don't doubt that uglier girls may in fact have to "do more" to get customers but specific acts are less important to me tha my over-all experience with a dancer.

I think they do, but they also tend to work in the less glamourous clubs which seem to allow more, too. You go to a high ranking club, you don't see many girls who would count as homely.

One of the best I've been with was nothing to write home about, but she would do and allow most anything. I’ve also been with beautiful women that were almost just as good, and some “homely” that were a lot worse. So, I guess I’m saying it really doesn’t matter.

Average girls have lower boundaries to begin with than hotties. But it's easier to get hot girls to exceed their (supposed) boundaries if you know how to play them right, so I would say go with the hot ones.

My primary goal in a club is to spend some time with a nice lady who happens to be attractive to me. Dances can be very sensual when you have a bit of a connection with a lady regardless of what she does or allows you to do. If I want sex I know where to go look for it and, again, I won't be getting it from an unattractive woman. I think a lot of guys (and no, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone on this board) would rather accept extras from a homely stripper than pay for them from a good looking escort.

I also agree with Dan's point about less fancy clubs. However it's at those clubs that I've found more often than not that the best looking girl also gives the best dances. Which for me really adds to FONDL's point that the holy grail of clubbing is finding a hot girl working in a dumpy joint.

I'm with Yoda in preferring a girl-next-door (w/o the Brazil move) look of classic beauty over sex worker stereotypes, and in evaluating dances by more than a checklist of what each of us touched and whether she let me insert my body part A into her body part B (although plenty of that may happen). So, if somebody goes into a club looking for a handjob and gets turned down by the bimbo with the freakshow boob job, but finds satisfaction with a girl who's nothing to look at, he might draw a different conclusion than I would.

I'm with Yoda, I've never bought a dance from a girl I considered homely. I can't answer the question because I don't buy a dance unless I find the girl attractive. I also agree with whoever said that you tend to find more contact in smaller less-fancy clubs, and such clubs tend to have mostly girls who are a cut or two below the girls working in the big fancy places, although not always. For me one of the main objectives of clubbing is to find a really attractive girl in a smaller club. Then you have the best of both worlds. And it's usually cheaper too.

Wow! These are good stories, if a little disturbing. I don't feel like going out and trying my luck on the homely side. They might take offence if I took along a sick bag.