BASHFUL'S ONGOING PRICING SURVEY SUMMARY PAGE

Last Updated : April 4, 2008

The following are links to other content on the Sex-In-Nevada website :

IMPORTANT LINKS
SIN MESSAGE BOARD
CWMCM#12
NEVADA PROSTITUTION LAWS


We are now collecting data to update the pricing survey.   If you would like to submit pricing data from your parties please use the form linked below to submit your data:

 http://sex-in-nevada.com/tinc?key=ODQZ8q7p&formname=pricing_survey

All submitters will remain confidential and only statistics generated from the submitted data will be made public.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY :

From November 17, 2001, to May 10, 2002, a total of 117 submitted sessions from 31 different customers showed that 90% of the sessions had a cost rate from $196 an hour to $803 an hour, with average $403 an hour, median $360 an hour, and standard deviation of $225 an hour.

Please understand that these statistics are for an hourly rate and not just a cost - the actual time of a session with a Nevada prostitute may vary widely, from fifteen minutes to several hours, depending on what the customer contracts for in time and in specific activities.

As always, the only way you will ever know the actual rate that a specific lady will charge you is to step with her into the privacy of her room and negotiate.

BACKGROUND :

This is an online and ongoing survey of the rates paid by customers of legal Nevada prostitutes. Other information is also included in this survey. This is the third of my surveys. The first survey can be found here, and the second survey here.

If you are interested in knowing more information about the legal Nevada brothels, then your best source of information is the NvBrothels website which is here. The NvBrothels message board is here. There is also this website whose home page is here and message board here. You should also check out ArcticBear's website here, with message board here.

A good web page providing information on pricing can be found here. An excellent place to start for "collective wisdom" on LPIN (Legal Prostitution In Nevada) is here.

PHILOSOPHY :

It was back in November 1994 that I first started giving advice online about visiting the legal Nevada brothels. I am hardly an expert on the topic, or at least no more knowledgeable about LPIN than dozens of my good friends, both female as well as male. However, I seem to have dedicated a significant portion of my life to educating people on this subject, and have learned much and hope to learn more. Let information flow freely!

To help insure the integrity of this survey I required the submitters to e-mail me for a password. All submissions without a valid password are automatically discarded. The main reason why the password requirement helps insure (but does not guarantee) the survey's integrity is by allowing me to know how many sessions each submitter has made, and which ones. That way I can better see patterns if someone is "stuffing the ballot box".

Please understand that this is merely a survey with various inherent uncertainties, as is true with all surveys. Very little is proven beyond reasonable doubt. You should interpret the results herein as general trends and use them as a guide and not as being written in stone.

Can someone who is already familiar with the legal Nevada brothels learn anything from this survey? Perhaps. However, the purpose of this survey is very simple and direct : provide information about the costs of legal Nevada prostitute services that is as accurate as possible for people who know little on the subject. I've had two women who became legal Nevada prostitutes tell me that they used the results of my previous pricing surveys to help make their decision to work in this profession, so these surveys are not only of use to potential customers.

CRITIQUE :

I pride myself on trying very hard to be intellectually honest. The last thing I want to do is publish something that is misleading. Therefore, it is important to me that you, the reader, be willing to ask questions and think critically about this survey, and, indeed, any survey or study. It is through informed public debate that we can all learn.

Of the many criticisms that one can make of a survey, the two biggest criticisms are ones concerning sample size and method of sampling. In general, the more samples the survey has, the more accurate it is, but sample size is not the end-all and be-all for surveys. Since one can't (usually) sample the entire target population, one must instead attempt to get a representative random, uniform sample of the target population. I can not survey the entire population of legal Nevada brothel patrons since I do not have the resources to poll all of the brothel entrances/exits, and the brothels themselves do not provide me information. I am 100% dependent on voluntary contributions of information - which means that those that choose to participate in my survey are self-chosen and furthermore are online (it is unknown what percentage of legal Nevada brothel patrons are online). Consequently, my survey can not uniformly sample the customers.

The founding giant of sex research is Alfred Charles Kinsey, author of the so-called "Kinsey Report". Just put his name into any web search engine and stand back since there are lots of websites out there about him and his research. No, I am not trying to say I'm another Alfred Kinsey, although I am trying to do one of the things he did, which is survey people about sex. Kinsey had huge sample sizes (often from prison populations), but it was pointed out to him by survey researchers and other critics that he was not sampling uniformly from the general population (so his results can not be representative of the general population), something that he did not have the resources to remedy. This survey is in the same boat, although it additionally suffers from small sample sizes. There are other criticisms of Kinsey's surveys, one of which, interestingly enough, is that it is improper to even conduct surveys about sex. Undoubtedly there will be those who will level the same criticism toward this survey. I respectfully disagree.

A major problem with any survey about sex is getting people to participate and answer truthfully. As Lazarus Long wrote, "Everybody lies about sex".

If you are interested in reading a very readable and informative short book about what to look out for in surveys, I recommend "How to Lie with Statistics".

Many specific criticisms of this survey can be found among the following running commentary sprinkled among the presented tables.

SURVEY RESULTS :

Following are the survey results, given in thirty-one (31) tables with running commentary. If you have any questions concerning this survey then please feel free to e-mail them to me at "maquinista@mad.scientist.com" or post your questions on the message boards (here, here, and here).


TABLE 1 :

A GRAND TOTAL OF 117 SAMPLES (SESSIONS) FROM 31 DIFFERENT RESPONDENTS.

QUANTITY
UNITS
AVERAGE
MEDIAN
STNDEV
RATE $/HOUR 403.15 360.00 225.43
PRICE DOLLARS 533.59 400.00 525.14
TIME HOURS 1.54 1.00 1.74

This is the big summary table itself, for all sessions at all brothels across the state of Nevada. The statistics for the rate is much more meaningful than the statistics for the price alone. By looking at the rate (dollars per hour) you can compare sessions of different length.

So, on average, guys are paying around $400 an hour. The median is $360 an hour, which means that half the sessions were for $360 an hour or less.

Note that the average length of a party (a session with a prostitute) is about 1.5 hours, with median one (1) hour. It is my rather informal understanding that the average length of a party in the legal Nevada brothels is actually around twenty (20) minutes, so this means that the guys who took this survey are going for parties that are significantly longer than the norm. Also, guys may be thinking that their parties are longer than they really are. Guys know exactly how much money they spent but won't know exactly how long the party lasted unless they actually time it, and there is some opinion that guys feel their parties last longer than they really do.


KEY FOR COLUMNS OF STATISTICS TABLE

COLUMN
QUANTITY
STATISTIC
UNITS
A
SAMPLES N/A INTEGER
B
RESPONDENTS N/A INTEGER
C
RATE AVERAGE $/HOUR
D
RATE MEDIAN $/HOUR
E
RATE STANDARD DEVIATION $/HOUR
F
PRICE AVERAGE DOLLARS
G
PRICE MEDIAN DOLLARS
H
PRICE STANDARD DEVIATION DOLLARS
I
TIME AVERAGE HOURS
J
TIME MEDIAN HOURS
K
TIME STANDARD DEVIATION HOURS
L
LADY'S AGE AVERAGE YEARS

TABLE 2 :

STATISTICS FOR INDIVIDUAL BROTHELS

RANCH NAME
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Cherry Patch Ranch #1 / Mabel's 3 3 478.67 310.00 249.59 320.00 280.00 74.83 0.81 0.71 0.27 29.0
Chicken Ranch 11 6 406.95 414.29 110.69 663.64 500.00 299.31 1.78 1.08 0.99 27.7
Kit Kat Ranch 6 6 373.49 360.00 98.51 251.67 300.00 83.75 0.69 0.75 0.25 24.3
Kitty's Ranch 28 13 353.84 300.00 164.97 497.50 400.00 288.38 1.57 1.17 1.03 34.7
Moonlight Bunny Ranch 9 6 766.94 625.00 462.71 1065.56 625.00 1405.32 2.48 1.00 4.79 25.2
Old Bridge Ranch 6 5 420.00 400.00 111.95 446.67 320.00 340.33 1.00 1.00 0.48 26.0
Sagebrush Ranch 22 11 382.23 400.00 107.45 543.64 440.00 309.24 1.52 1.00 0.84 31.9
Shady Lady Ranch 4 3 218.93 205.71 29.58 300.00 360.00 82.46 1.38 1.33 0.38 44.0
Sheri's Ranch 14 11 445.28 400.00 226.87 696.43 500.00 471.89 2.01 1.17 2.10 31.0
revealed ranches 103 29 417.50 400.00 232.22 571.65 410.00 548.27 1.61 1.00 1.83 31.1
other ranches 14 7 297.62 300.00 123.73 253.57 250.00 63.88 1.00 1.00 0.49 35.4
all ranches 117 31 403.15 360.00 225.43 533.59 400.00 525.14 1.54 1.00 1.74 31.6

Columns "A" and "B" are very important. Column "A" tells you how many sessions were contributed for this brothel. Column "B" tells you how many different guys contributed those sessions in column "A". The only way I could know column "B" was to require a password for session submission.

The row "revealed ranches" consists of averages over the nine (9) revealed brothels. At least three (3) different guys must have submitted sessions on a given brothel for me to reveal that brothel's statistics. The row "other ranches" consists of averages over the remaining legal Nevada brothels. Note that there are only fourteen (14) sessions covering the remaining brothels, versus 103 sessions for the revealed ranches. The row "all ranches" consists of averages over all the ranches, and should match the information in Table 1.

Some revealed ranches have more submitted sessions than others. In general, the more sessions for a given ranch, the more accurate its statistics.

Judging from the number of different guys who contributed sessions for individual brothels, Kitty's, the Sagebrush and Sheri's ranches appear to be the most popular.


TABLE 3 :

RATE (DOLLARS PER HOUR) BY FIXED RATE INCREMENT

RATE
#
%
CUM %
BELOW 100 0 0.00 0.00
100 - 124 0 0.00 0.00
125 - 149 1 0.85 0.85
150 - 174 5 4.27 5.13
175 - 199 0 0.00 5.13
200 - 224 14 11.97 17.09
225 - 249 0 0.00 17.09
250 - 274 9 7.69 24.79
275 - 299 2 1.71 26.50
300 - 324 18 15.38 41.88
325 - 349 8 6.84 48.72
350 - 374 4 3.42 52.14
375 - 399 0 0.00 52.14
400 - 424 25 21.37 73.50
425 - 449 7 5.98 79.49
450 - 474 1 0.85 80.34
475 - 499 0 0.00 80.34
500 - 524 8 6.84 87.18
525 - 549 1 0.85 88.03
550 - 574 0 0.00 88.03
575 - 599 0 0.00 88.03
600 - 624 5 4.27 92.31
625 - 649 0 0.00 92.31
650 - 674 0 0.00 92.31
675 - 699 1 0.85 93.16
700 - 724 0 0.00 93.16
725 - 749 0 0.00 93.16
750 - 774 0 0.00 93.16
775 - 799 0 0.00 93.16
800 - 824 4 3.42 96.58
825 - 849 0 0.00 96.58
850 - 874 0 0.00 96.58
875 - 899 0 0.00 96.58
900 - 924 0 0.00 96.58
925 - 949 0 0.00 96.58
950 - 974 0 0.00 96.58
975 - 999 0 0.00 96.58
ABOVE 1000 4 3.42 100.00
TOTAL 117 100.00 100.00

I consider this to be a very important table. It tells you how many sessions fell within a certain band of rates. For instance, twenty-five (25) sessions fell within the $400 - $424 an hour band, or about 21% of all sessions submitted. The last column is the cumulative percentage which allows you to see what percentage of sessions had rates lower than or equal to a given rate. For instance, about 74% of the sessions were for $424 an hour or less. The last column has header "CUM %" which is an abbreviation for "Cumulative Percent", although secretly I kinda like having tables listed with "CUM".

Only four (4) of the sessions had a rate higher than $1000 an hour.

FIGURE 1 :

This is my one figure for this survey report. In future editions I'll try to include more figures.

For this figure only I omitted the few data points that were greater than $625 per hour to make the figure more easily readable.


TABLE 4 :

RATE (DOLLARS PER HOUR) BY FIXED PERCENTAGE INCREMENT

%
RATE
0 142.86
5 196.00
10 200.00
15 220.89
20 251.00
25 270.00
30 300.00
35 300.00
40 315.50
45 340.00
50 360.00
55 400.00
60 400.00
65 400.00
70 428.57
75 450.00
80 500.00
85 529.71
90 600.00
95 803.20
100 1950.00

This table is, believe it or not, the same information as Table 3. In Table 3 you saw even increments of rate with the percentages associated with those rates. Here, you see even increments of percentage with the average rates associated with those percentages. Note that the 50% rate is $360 an hour, which is the median as previously reported. The 5% rate is $196 an hour, and the 95% rate is $803 an hour, which is why I stated in the Executive Summary that 90% of the sessions had a cost rate from $196 an hour to $803 an hour.

Note that the lowest rate reported was about $143 an hour, and the highest rate was $1950 an hour.


TABLE 5 :

PRICE (DOLLARS) BY FIXED PRICE INCREMENT

PRICE
#
%
CUM %
BELOW 100 0 0.00 0.00
100 - 124 2 1.71 1.71
125 - 149 0 0.00 1.71
150 - 174 3 2.56 4.27
175 - 199 0 0.00 4.27
200 - 224 15 12.82 17.09
225 - 249 1 0.85 17.95
250 - 274 3 2.56 20.51
275 - 299 0 0.00 20.51
300 - 324 15 12.82 33.33
325 - 349 9 7.69 41.03
350 - 374 4 3.42 44.44
375 - 399 0 0.00 44.44
400 - 424 12 10.26 54.70
425 - 449 3 2.56 57.26
450 - 474 0 0.00 57.26
475 - 499 0 0.00 57.26
500 - 524 20 17.09 74.36
525 - 549 0 0.00 74.36
550 - 574 0 0.00 74.36
575 - 599 0 0.00 74.36
600 - 624 1 0.85 75.21
625 - 649 0 0.00 75.21
650 - 674 1 0.85 76.07
675 - 699 0 0.00 76.07
700 - 724 2 1.71 77.78
725 - 749 0 0.00 77.78
750 - 774 3 2.56 80.34
775 - 799 0 0.00 80.34
800 - 824 5 4.27 84.62
825 - 849 0 0.00 84.62
850 - 874 0 0.00 84.62
875 - 899 0 0.00 84.62
900 - 924 1 0.85 85.47
925 - 949 0 0.00 85.47
950 - 974 0 0.00 85.47
975 - 999 0 0.00 85.47
ABOVE 1000 17 14.53 100.00
TOTAL 117 100.00 100.00

I consider this table to be much less informative than Table 3 on rates, but I provide it for your perusal. Rates are much more informative than simple prices.


TABLE 6 :

PRICE (DOLLARS) BY FIXED PERCENTAGE INCREMENT

%
PRICE
0 100.00
5 190.00
10 200.00
15 220.00
20 250.00
25 300.00
30 300.00
35 312.00
40 340.00
45 360.00
50 400.00
55 400.00
60 500.00
65 500.00
70 500.00
75 650.00
80 700.00
85 800.00
90 1000.00
95 1200.00
100 5000.00

This table is the same information as Table 5. Note that the lowest price paid was $100, and the highest was $5000.


TABLE 7 :

TIME (HOURS) BY FIXED TIME INCREMENT

TIME
#
%
CUM %
BELOW 20 MINUTES 1 0.85 0.85
20 - 29 MINUTES 7 5.98 6.84
30 - 39 MINUTES 13 11.11 17.95
40 - 49 MINUTES 4 3.42 21.37
50 - 59 MINUTES 2 1.71 23.08
60 - 69 MINUTES 42 35.90 58.97
70 - 79 MINUTES 5 4.27 63.25
80 - 89 MINUTES 3 2.56 65.81
90 - 99 MINUTES 4 3.42 69.23
100 - 109 MINUTES 1 0.85 70.09
110 - 119 MINUTES 0 0.00 70.09
120 - 129 MINUTES 11 9.40 79.49
130 - 139 MINUTES 1 0.85 80.34
140 - 149 MINUTES 0 0.00 80.34
150 - 159 MINUTES 6 5.13 85.47
160 - 169 MINUTES 0 0.00 85.47
170 - 179 MINUTES 0 0.00 85.47
180 - 189 MINUTES 10 8.55 94.02
190 - 199 MINUTES 1 0.85 94.87
200 - 209 MINUTES 0 0.00 94.87
210 - 219 MINUTES 2 1.71 96.58
220 - 229 MINUTES 0 0.00 96.58
230 - 239 MINUTES 0 0.00 96.58
ABOVE FOUR HOURS 4 3.42 100.00
TOTAL 117 100.00 100.00

This table shows that the guys who took this survey are going for fairly long parties. 36% of sessions were reported as being in the hour long category, and 9% in the two (2) hour long category.


TABLE 8 :

TIME (HOURS) BY FIXED PERCENTAGE INCREMENT

%
TIME
0 0.25
5 0.48
10 0.50
15 0.50
20 0.75
25 1.00
30 1.00
35 1.00
40 1.00
45 1.00
50 1.00
55 1.00
60 1.00
65 1.17
70 1.50
75 2.00
80 2.00
85 2.40
90 3.00
95 3.05
100 16.00

This table is the same information as Table 7. Note that 10% of the sessions submitted were three (3) hours in length or longer, since 90% were three (3) hours in length or less.


TABLE 9 :

SEASON SUMMARY

ANSWER
#
%
CUM %
RATE
PRICE
TIME
WIN99 0 0.00 0.00
-
-
-
SPR99 3 2.56 2.56 766.67 766.67 1.00
SUM99 2 1.71 4.27 332.14 300.00 1.29
FAL99 2 1.71 5.98 300.00 300.00 1.00
WIN00 1 0.85 6.84 350.00 700.00 2.00
SPR00 2 1.71 8.55 400.00 650.00 1.50
SUM00 4 3.42 11.97 458.33 487.50 1.19
FAL00 1 0.85 12.82 300.00 300.00 1.00
WIN01 1 0.85 13.68 400.00 800.00 2.00
SPR01 13 11.11 24.79 395.82 470.77 1.28
SUM01 26 22.22 47.01 318.81 501.15 1.70
FAL01 16 13.68 60.68 380.60 497.50 1.34
WIN02 28 23.93 84.62 470.55 557.86 1.58
SPR02 18 15.38 100.00 401.18 619.44 1.82
TOTAL 117 100.00 100.00
-
-
-

This table tells you how many sessions were contributed for each three-month-long season, with corresponding percentages and average statistics.


TABLE 10 :

VAGINAL SUMMARY

ANSWER
#
%
RATE
PRICE
TIME
YES 110 94.02 404.49 552.27 1.59
NO 7 5.98 382.04 240.00 0.69
TOTAL 117 100.00
-
-
-

Clearly most guys went for vaginal intercourse in their parties. Note that the average length of a party without vaginal intercourse was less than half (0.7 hours versus 1.6 hours) that of the average party with vaginal intercourse.


TABLE 11 :

MASSAGE HER SUMMARY

ANSWER
#
%
RATE
PRICE
TIME
YES 49 41.88 339.39 597.76 1.92
NO 67 57.26 451.82 491.64 1.27
SKIP 1 0.85 266.67 200.00 0.75
TOTAL 117 100.00
-
-
-

Did the guy massage his lady? 42% did, and on average their parties lasted longer (1.9 hours versus 1.3 hours).

This is the first question whose answer was optional. Only one (1) fellow chose not to answer it.


TABLE 12 :

MASSAGE HIM SUMMARY

ANSWER
#
%
RATE
PRICE
TIME
YES 79 67.52 351.04 508.61 1.59
NO 36 30.77 526.94 600.00 1.39
SKIP 2 1.71 233.33 325.00 1.75
TOTAL 117 100.00
-
-
-

Did the lady massage her client? 68% did, which is significantly more than the 42% of guys who massaged their lady as reported in Table 11. Guys are more willing to pay to be given a massage than pay to give one.


TABLE 13 :

ORAL ON HER SUMMARY

ANSWER
#
%
RATE
PRICE
TIME
YES 51 43.59 344.04 680.59 2.16
NO 66 56.41 448.83 420.00 1.06
SKIP 0 0.00
-
-
-
TOTAL 117 100.00
-
-
-

44% of guys performed oral on their lady. Naughty boys! Note that those session lasted twice as long (2.2 hours versus 1.1 hours) as those sessions where they didn't perform oral on their lady.


TABLE 14 :

ORAL ON HIM SUMMARY

ANSWER
#
%
RATE
PRICE
TIME
YES 113 96.58 399.81 542.30 1.57
NO 4 3.42 497.57 287.50 0.62
SKIP 0 0.00
-
-
-
TOTAL 117 100.00
-
-
-

97% of all sessions reported had the lady performing oral on he client. I find that to be an interesting statistic, although not particularly surprising.


TABLE 15 :

HAND-JOB SUMMARY

ANSWER
#
%
RATE
PRICE
TIME
YES 48 41.03 387.46 612.08 1.86
NO 55 47.01 440.75 485.27 1.27
SKIP 14 11.97 309.22 454.29 1.48
TOTAL 117 100.00
-
-
-

Roughly the same number of reported sessions had the lady performing some hand stimulation on her client versus not. For some reason, 12% of the guys chose not to answer this question.


TABLE 16 :

RATING SUMMARY

ANSWER
#
%
RATE
PRICE
TIME
AGE
EXCELLENT 72 61.54 368.81 596.39 1.78 31.8
GOOD 38 32.48 414.92 411.58 1.19 32.0
BAD 7 5.98 692.52 550.00 0.95 27.6
SKIP 0 0.00
-
-
-
-
TOTAL 117 100.00
-
-
-
-

AVERAGE 2.6
STANDARD DEVIATION 0.6

62% of the time guys felt that their lady provided excellent service. Note that those sessions with an excellent rating had the lowest average rate and the longest party length.

Beneath the main table I provide a sub-table with and average of 2.6 and standard deviation of 0.6. What these statistics reflect is a weighted average where "BAD" has value one (1), "GOOD" has value two (2), and "EXCELLENT" has value three (3). I will use this weighted scale in some of the following tables.

Nobody choose to skip answering this question.


TABLE 17 :

RATING BY BROTHEL

RANCH NAME
SAMPLES
RESPONDENTS
EXCELLENT
GOOD
BAD
SKIP
Cherry Patch Ranch #1 / Mabel's 3 3 33.33 33.33 33.33 0.00
Chicken Ranch 11 6 72.73 27.27 0.00 0.00
Kit Kat Ranch 6 6 33.33 50.00 16.67 0.00
Kitty's Ranch 28 13 71.43 25.00 3.57 0.00
Moonlight Bunny Ranch 9 6 44.44 33.33 22.22 0.00
Old Bridge Ranch 6 5 50.00 33.33 16.67 0.00
Sagebrush Ranch 22 11 81.82 18.18 0.00 0.00
Shady Lady Ranch 4 3 25.00 75.00 0.00 0.00
Sheri's Ranch 14 11 57.14 42.86 0.00 0.00
revealed ranches 103 29 63.11 31.07 5.83 0.00
other ranches 14 7 50.00 42.86 7.14 0.00
all ranches 117 31 61.54 32.48 5.98 0.00

The last row, "all ranches", should be the same information as in Table 16.


TABLE 18 :

JACUZZI SUMMARY

ANSWER
#
%
RATE
PRICE
TIME
YES 13 11.11 354.91 853.85 2.50
NO 103 88.03 408.88 494.08 1.42
SKIP 1 0.85 440.00 440.00 1.00
TOTAL 117 100.00
-
-
-

Parties using a Jacuzzi last significantly longer (2.5 hours versus 1.4 hours) than those that don't. Only 11% of reported sessions used a Jacuzzi.


TABLE 19 :

COUPLES PARTY SUMMARY

ANSWER
#
%
RATE
PRICE
TIME
NO 116 99.15 405.33 535.60 1.53
YES 1 0 0.00
-
-
-
YES 2 0 0.00
-
-
-
YES 3 0 0.00
-
-
-
SKIP 1 0.85 150.00 300.00 2.00
TOTAL 117 100.00
-
-
-

There were no couples parties reported.


KEY FOR COLUMNS OF LADY'S AGE TABLE

COLUMN
QUANTITY
UNITS
A
AGE YEARS
B
# OF SAMPLES INTEGER
C
PERCENTAGE %
D
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE %
E
AVERAGE RATE DOLLARS/HOUR
F
AVERAGE PRICE DOLLARS
G
AVERAGE TIME HOURS
H
AVERAGE RATING SCALE
I
AVERAGE BODY TYPE SCALE
J
AVERAGE ATTRACTIVENESS SCALE

TABLE 20 :

LADY'S AGE (YEARS) BY FIXED AGE INCREMENT

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
18 - 19 2 1.71 1.71 350.00 150.00 0.42 2.5 1.0 3.0
20 - 21 3 2.56 4.27 816.67 516.67 0.67 2.0 1.0 4.0
22 - 23 7 5.98 10.26 484.44 1128.57 3.10 2.3 1.1 3.4
24 - 25 17 14.53 24.79 581.50 520.00 1.02 2.3 1.8 3.1
26 - 27 14 11.97 36.75 407.62 579.29 1.46 2.5 1.7 3.1
28 - 29 8 6.84 43.59 370.03 516.25 1.34 2.8 2.0 3.0
30 - 31 18 15.38 58.97 357.93 577.22 1.98 2.8 1.6 3.1
32 - 33 12 10.26 69.23 386.94 521.67 1.38 2.8 1.5 3.0
34 - 35 10 8.55 77.78 330.00 396.00 1.27 2.7 1.6 2.7
36 - 37 5 4.27 82.05 431.20 420.00 1.03 2.6 2.0 2.4
38 - 39 4 3.42 85.47 240.48 425.00 2.04 3.0 2.0 3.0
40 - 41 4 3.42 88.89 350.00 500.00 1.50 2.5 1.8 2.2
42 - 43 3 2.56 91.45 190.74 350.00 1.75 2.7 2.3 2.7
44 - 45 6 5.13 96.58 263.89 466.67 1.96 2.5 2.8 2.7
46 - 47 1 0.85 97.44 205.71 240.00 1.17 2.0 1.0 1.0
48 - 49 2 1.71 99.15 235.00 380.00 1.67 2.0 1.5 1.0
50 - 51 1 0.85 100.00 340.00 340.00 1.00 2.0 2.0 2.0
52 - 53 0 0.00 100.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
54+ 0 0.00 100.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
SKIP 0 0.00 100.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL 117 100.00 100.00
-
-
-
-
-
-

AVERAGE 31.6
MEDIAN 31.0
STANDARD DEVIATION 7.0

The average age of legal Nevada prostitutes, as polled, is 31.6 years. As this is a survey where the identity of the lady is not known, there is no way to know if the ladies being reported on are uniformly sampled from all of those that are available. It could very well be that some ladies are being reported on more than others, but this survey will never know that.

When a guy reports a lady's age, he is reporting what he thinks her age is, or perhaps what she says her age is. As can be expected, there is probably a lot of error in this statistic.

Note that there is a general decrease of rate (dollars per hour) paid with increase of the lady's age.

Column "H" is the same scale given in the Table 16 sub-table, where "BAD" has value one (1), "GOOD" has value two (2), and "EXCELLENT" has value three (3).

Column "I" is the same scale given in the Table 22 sub-table, where "SLENDER/THIN" has value one (1), "AVERAGE" has value two (2), "FULL-FIGURED" has value three (3), and "BIG BEAUTIFUL GIRL" has value four (4).

Column "J" is the same scale given in the Table 24 sub-table, where "BELOW AVERAGE" has value one (1), "COMMON/PLAIN/AVERAGE" has value two (2), "ABOVE AVERAGE" has value three (3), and "RARE BEAUTY" has value four (4).


TABLE 21 :

LADY'S AGE (YEARS) BY FIXED PERCENTAGE INCREMENT

%
AGE
0 19.0
5 23.0
10 24.2
15 25.0
20 25.0
25 27.0
30 27.0
35 27.0
40 29.0
45 31.0
50 31.0
55 31.0
60 33.0
65 33.0
70 35.0
75 35.0
80 37.0
85 39.0
90 43.0
95 45.0
100 51.0

This table is the same information as given in Table 20. The youngest age reported was 19 - the oldest, 51. Half of them are reported as being between 27 and 35 years of age.


TABLE 22 :

BODY TYPE SUMMARY

ANSWER
#
%
RATE
PRICE
TIME
AGE
SLENDER/THIN 52 44.44 438.25 655.00 1.73 29.7
AVERAGE 47 40.17 409.27 451.28 1.33 32.3
FULL-FIGURED 18 15.38 285.78 397.78 1.51 35.6
BIG BEAUTIFUL GIRL 0 0.00
-
-
-
-
SKIP 0 0.00
-
-
-
-
TOTAL 117 100.00
-
-
-
-

AVERAGE 1.7
STANDARD DEVIATION 0.7

Guys seem to be paying roughly the same ($438 an hour versus $409 an hour) for slender versus average body type ladies, but significantly less ($286 an hour) for full-figured. Note that nobody rated his lady as being a big, beautiful girl, and nobody chose to skip rating this optional category.

There is a slight increase in age with increase in body type size.

The average body type scale was 1.7, where "SLENDER/THIN" has value one (1), "AVERAGE" has value two (2), "FULL-FIGURED" has value three (3), and "BIG BEAUTIFUL GIRL" has value four (4).


TABLE 23 :

BODY TYPE BY BROTHEL

RANCH NAME
SAMPLES
RESPONDENTS
SLENDER
AVERAGE
FULL
BIG
SKIP
Cherry Patch Ranch #1 / Mabel's 3 3 0.00 33.33 66.67 0.00 0.00
Chicken Ranch 11 6 36.36 45.45 18.18 0.00 0.00
Kit Kat Ranch 6 6 66.67 16.67 16.67 0.00 0.00
Kitty's Ranch 28 13 42.86 35.71 21.43 0.00 0.00
Moonlight Bunny Ranch 9 6 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Old Bridge Ranch 6 5 33.33 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sagebrush Ranch 22 11 54.55 36.36 9.09 0.00 0.00
Shady Lady Ranch 4 3 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sheri's Ranch 14 11 50.00 42.86 7.14 0.00 0.00
revealed ranches 103 29 47.57 38.83 13.59 0.00 0.00
other ranches 14 7 21.43 50.00 28.57 0.00 0.00
all ranches 117 31 44.44 40.17 15.38 0.00 0.00

The last row, "all ranches", should be the same information as in Table 22.


TABLE 24 :

ATTRACTIVENESS SUMMARY

ANSWER
#
%
RATE
PRICE
TIME
AGE
RARE BEAUTY 20 17.09 500.56 731.00 1.84 26.1
ABOVE AVERAGE 73 62.39 409.33 534.25 1.53 31.5
COMMON/PLAIN/AVERAGE 18 15.38 314.49 381.67 1.34 35.8
BELOW AVERAGE 6 5.13 269.29 323.33 1.25 39.7
SKIP 0 0.00
-
-
-
-
TOTAL 117 100.00
-
-
-
-

AVERAGE 2.9
STANDARD DEVIATION 0.7

There is a strong correlation of higher rate (dollars per hour) with higher reported lady's beauty. Also a lower lady's age with higher lady's beauty. Is anyone surprised?

Nobody chose to skip reporting the lady's attractiveness.

The average attractiveness scale was 2.9, where "BELOW AVERAGE" has value one (1), "COMMON/PLAIN/AVERAGE" has value two (2), "ABOVE AVERAGE" has value three (3), and "RARE BEAUTY" has value four (4).


TABLE 25 :

ATTRACTIVENESS BY BROTHEL

RANCH NAME
SAMPLES
RESPONDENTS
RARE
ABOVE
AVERAGE
BELOW
SKIP
Cherry Patch Ranch #1 / Mabel's 3 3 0.00 66.67 0.00 33.33 0.00
Chicken Ranch 11 6 36.36 54.55 9.09 0.00 0.00
Kit Kat Ranch 6 6 16.67 83.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kitty's Ranch 28 13 7.14 75.00 17.86 0.00 0.00
Moonlight Bunny Ranch 9 6 66.67 22.22 11.11 0.00 0.00
Old Bridge Ranch 6 5 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sagebrush Ranch 22 11 18.18 54.55 27.27 0.00 0.00
Shady Lady Ranch 4 3 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 0.00
Sheri's Ranch 14 11 14.29 85.71 0.00 0.00 0.00
revealed ranches 103 29 18.45 66.02 12.62 2.91 0.00
other ranches 14 7 7.14 35.71 35.71 21.43 0.00
all ranches 117 31 17.09 62.39 15.38 5.13 0.00

The last row, "all ranches", should be the same information as in Table 24.


TABLE 26 :

RATING VERSUS BODY TYPE MATRIX

-
EXCELLENT
GOOD
BAD
SKIP
SLENDER/THIN
28.21 14.53 1.71 0.00
AVERAGE
22.22 14.53 3.42 0.00
FULL-FIGURED
11.11 3.42 0.85 0.00
BIG BEAUTIFUL GIRL
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SKIP
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

The values in this table are percentages of reported sessions given as a cross-correlation of Tables 16 and 22. 28% of sessions were reported as having excellent service with a slender/thin working girl, making this the single largest category.


TABLE 27 :

RATING VERSUS ATTRACTIVENESS MATRIX

-
EXCELLENT
GOOD
BAD
SKIP
RARE BEAUTY
12.82 3.42 0.85 0.00
ABOVE AVERAGE
41.03 18.80 2.56 0.00
COMMON/PLAIN/AVERAGE
7.69 5.98 1.71 0.00
BELOW AVERAGE
0.00 4.27 0.85 0.00
SKIP
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

The values in this table are percentages of reported sessions given as a cross-correlation of Tables 16 and 24. The single largest category was the one having excellent service with a working girl of above average attractiveness. 41% of all sessions fell into this category.


TABLE 28 :

BODY TYPE VERSUS ATTRACTIVENESS MATRIX

-
SLENDER/THIN
AVERAGE
FULL-FIGURED
BIG BEAUTIFUL GIRL
SKIP
RARE BEAUTY
12.82 3.42 0.85 0.00 0.00
ABOVE AVERAGE
24.79 28.21 9.40 0.00 0.00
COMMON/PLAIN/AVERAGE
5.13 6.84 3.42 0.00 0.00
BELOW AVERAGE
1.71 1.71 1.71 0.00 0.00
SKIP
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

The values in this table are percentages of reported sessions given as a cross-correlation of Tables 22 and 24. 28% of sessions were reported as being with a lady of average body type and above average attractiveness, the largest category.


KEY FOR COLUMNS OF BROTHEL SUMMARY TABLE

COLUMN
QUANTITY
UNITS
A
SAMPLES INTEGER
B
RESPONDENTS INTEGER
C
AVERAGE RATING SCALE
D
AVERAGE BODY TYPE SCALE
E
AVERAGE ATTRACTIVENESS SCALE

TABLE 29 :

BROTHEL SUMMARY TABLE

RANCH NAME
A
B
C
D
E
Cherry Patch Ranch #1 / Mabel's 3 3 2.0 2.7 2.3
Chicken Ranch 11 6 2.7 1.8 3.3
Kit Kat Ranch 6 6 2.2 1.5 3.2
Kitty's Ranch 28 13 2.7 1.8 2.9
Moonlight Bunny Ranch 9 6 2.2 1.3 3.6
Old Bridge Ranch 6 5 2.3 1.7 3.0
Sagebrush Ranch 22 11 2.8 1.5 2.9
Shady Lady Ranch 4 3 2.2 1.5 2.0
Sheri's Ranch 14 11 2.6 1.6 3.1

I decided I didn't have enough horizontal room for this table's information in Table 2, so I include it here.

Column "C" is the same scale given in the Table 16 sub-table, where "BAD" has value one (1), "GOOD" has value two (2), and "EXCELLENT" has value three (3).

Column "D" is the same scale given in the Table 22 sub-table, where "SLENDER/THIN" has value one (1), "AVERAGE" has value two (2), "FULL-FIGURED" has value three (3), and "BIG BEAUTIFUL GIRL" has value four (4).

Column "E" is the same scale given in the Table 24 sub-table, where "BELOW AVERAGE" has value one (1), "COMMON/PLAIN/AVERAGE" has value two (2), "ABOVE AVERAGE" has value three (3), and "RARE BEAUTY" has value four (4).


KEY FOR COLUMNS OF USER SUMMARY TABLE

COLUMN
QUANTITY
UNITS
A
SEQUENTIAL # INTEGER
B
USER ID # INTEGER
C
# OF SESSIONS INTEGER
D
# OF RANCHES INTEGER
E
AVERAGE RATE DOLLARS/HOUR
F
AVERAGE TIME HOURS
G
AVERAGE AGE YEARS
H
AVERAGE RATING SCALE
I
AVERAGE BODY TYPE SCALE
J
AVERAGE ATTRACTIVENESS SCALE

TABLE 30 :

USER SUMMARY TABLE

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
1 1227 1 1 1950.00 0.33 25.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
2 1362 3 2 466.67 2.67 31.0 2.3 1.3 3.0
3 1582 8 4 440.83 0.81 30.2 2.2 1.6 2.9
4 1794 15 12 410.13 1.06 35.4 2.3 1.6 2.1
5 2025 3 3 275.00 1.25 28.3 2.7 2.0 3.0
6 2346 3 1 266.67 1.00 35.7 2.7 1.7 3.0
7 2744 2 1 316.67 0.88 33.0 2.5 3.0 3.0
8 2865 1 1 400.00 3.00 25.0 3.0 1.0 3.0
9 3204 4 2 532.79 1.58 27.0 2.5 1.0 3.5
10 3288 5 3 301.90 2.37 33.8 3.0 2.0 2.8
11 4063 2 2 200.00 1.00 39.0 2.5 2.0 3.0
12 4372 8 3 283.61 1.67 36.8 2.6 1.8 2.4
13 5074 6 2 409.26 2.58 27.7 2.3 1.5 3.2
14 5653 5 2 326.67 1.75 44.2 2.6 2.4 2.6
15 5742 1 1 312.50 16.00 23.0 3.0 1.0 4.0
16 5776 2 2 400.00 1.50 35.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
17 5828 5 4 416.00 0.77 24.2 2.8 1.4 3.4
18 5869 1 1 200.00 2.00 41.0 2.0 2.0 3.0
19 6243 1 1 300.00 0.50 25.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
20 6548 4 4 266.67 0.81 35.0 3.0 2.8 3.0
21 7371 1 1 1000.00 1.00 37.0 3.0 1.0 3.0
22 8001 1 1 200.00 2.00 43.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
23 8072 1 1 350.00 2.00 27.0 3.0 1.0 3.0
24 8441 5 4 520.00 0.97 24.2 2.8 1.4 3.6
25 8627 1 1 250.00 3.00 45.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
26 8709 1 1 400.00 2.50 27.0 3.0 1.0 3.0
27 8860 2 2 260.00 1.00 32.0 3.0 2.5 3.5
28 9255 8 4 305.69 1.53 34.2 2.9 1.6 3.1
29 9365 13 4 531.43 1.24 25.9 2.2 1.3 3.3
30 9670 3 3 450.00 1.67 25.7 2.3 2.7 2.3
31 9815 1 1 300.00 0.33 19.0 3.0 1.0 3.0

The sequential numbers given in column "A" will change in future updates of this pricing survey, but those of column "B" will not. Every survey submitter gets labeled with a random number from 1000 to 9999, and that is what you see in column "B".

Eleven (11) fellows submitted only one (1) session each. At the other end of the spectrum, fellow "1794" submitted fifteen (15) sessions for twelve (12) different brothels, and fellow "9365" submitted thirteen (13) sessions for four (4) different brothels. Therefore, fellows who submitted more sessions have a greater influence on this survey that those who submitted fewer sessions.

To even out this discrepancy, I averaged the thirty-one (31) average rates of column "E" (one for each submitter), and got $420.73 per hour, versus the $403.15 per hour as averaged over all 117 submitted sessions. The average rate for the 20 fellows who submitted at least two (2) sessions is 369.00 dollars per hour.

Fellow "9365" goes for younger (average 25.9 years) ladies than does "1794" (average 35.4 years), or at least he thinks they're younger.

It is possible that one of the eleven (11) people who submitted only one session is a working girl who reported on her own brothel, judging from the e-mail address that person used when they requested a password. However, I'm not sure, and since the one submitted session was in line with the other submissions from that same brothel, it did not particularly bias this survey.


KEY FOR COLUMNS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENT TABLE

COLUMN
QUANTITY
UNITS
A
ROW # INTEGER
B
QUANTITY #1 VARIOUS
C
QUANTITY #2 VARIOUS
D
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT UNITLESS

TABLE 31 :

CORRELATION COEFFICIENT TABLE

A
B
C
D
1 Price Time +0.91
2 Rate Time -0.22
3 Rate Age -0.39
4 Rate Rating -0.28
5 Rate Body Type -0.21
6 Rate Attractiveness +0.27
7 Time Age +0.03
8 Time Rating +0.17
9 Time Body Type -0.07
10 Time Attractiveness +0.09
11 Age Rating +0.09
12 Age Body Type +0.29
13 Age Attractiveness -0.47
14 Rating Body Type -0.002
15 Rating Attractiveness +0.28
16 Body Type Attractiveness -0.25

For those of you who don't know what a correlation coefficient is, I'll explain it for you. Remember, you don't have to be a propeller-head like me to understand elementary probability and statistics.

A correlation coefficient between two quantities is a number between -1 and +1. A value of +1 means perfect correlation, so that when one quantity increases so too does the other, and when it decreases then so too does the other quantity. A value of -1 means that when one quantity increases the other one decreases, and vice versa (anti-correlation). A value of zero (0) means no correlation at all. Usually one does not get perfect correlation (+1) or anti-correlation (-1) but some number strictly between -1 and +1.

For instance, Row #1 of Table 31 give a correlation coefficient of +0.91 for price and time. This means that price and time have a very high correlation, and that correlation is positive showing that as one quantity increases (price or time) do too does the other (in general).

All the other pairings (Rows 2 through 16) have less correlation. Row #13 (age and attractiveness) gives a correlation coefficient of -0.47, indicating a moderate trend showing guys feel the older the lady the less attractive she is. Row #14 (rating and body type) has an almost zero (0) correlation coefficient meaning that there is no discernable trend when comparing customer overall satisfaction with the lady's body type.


BALL PARK FIGURE QUOTES :

Most readers will find the following discussion too simple and obvious to bother reading, but I'm trying to reach all possible readers of this web page, so there is no intention on my part to insult anyone's intelligence.

Over the years I've received lots of e-mail from guys who wanted advice on visiting legal Nevada prostitutes, and by far the most-asked question has been, "How much does it cost?" Most guys know that there are no fixed rates for the legal Nevada prostitutes, but they want a "ballpark figure" from me. It is amazing how many have used that very phrase : "ballpark figure". If you are someone who wants a ballpark figure quote, then I'll tell you how to get it. This will, however, be a VERY big ballpark! Many (most?) legal Nevada prostitutes do not negotiate for time, only activities, and as soon as you pop your cork she kicks you out, unless you have negotiated for more than that before giving her your money and gotten her to agree to your requests out loud (most brothels monitor negotiations via hidden microphone).

To get your "ballpark figure", you first need to decide how much time you want, in decimal hours. Call that quantity TIME. Then you need to pick the applicable rate (in dollars per hour), which we'll call RATE.

But which value will you choose for RATE? The best choice will probably be the statewide average which is $403.15 per hour. That is, of course, only an estimate of the average, since nobody knows what the actual average is, but for a ballpark figure that is probably as good as you can do. You can pick other rates if you so desire, such as from column "C" of Table 2 for the revealed brothels, or from the average rate columns from many of the other tables in this survey report. However, in general the more samples there are in the average the more accurate is the estimate for that average, and only that $403.15 per hour value for RATE has all 117 samples in it - all the other average rates are based on fewer samples and are therefore less accurate.

So once you've decided your values for TIME and RATE, just multiply them together to get your ball park estimate for the PRICE in dollars, or PRICE = RATE * TIME. As an example, if you choose TIME = 2.0 hours and RATE = 403.15 dollars per hour, you get PRICE equal to around $800.

For those of you who are familiar with linear regression (least-squares fitting), this might interest you. Instead of the simple equation I gave, you can modify it to be PRICE = RATE * TIME + INTERCEPT and compute those values of RATE and INTERCEPT that best fit your raw price and time data. I did so for the 117 samples and got RATE = $274.14 per hour and INTERCEPT = $112.61. These values gave a smaller RMS (Root Mean Square) error ($220.39) when applied to the raw data than choosing RATE = $403.15 an hour and INTERCEPT = 0.0 dollars ($325.88). So, for TIME = 2.0 hours you get PRICE equal to about $660. That is less than the $800 estimate obtained with the first equation, but what with the other fundamental uncertainties in this entire process I'm not sure it is worth your while to use the linear regression results, although the linear regression formula becomes more accurate for longer parties. Comments, anyone?

Remember, these are ball park figure quotes only so treat them as such. And these are averages, so you are as likely to pay less than this quote as pay more.


FINAL REMARKS :

I have been informed of many instances of guys walking into a legal Nevada brothel, picking a lady and going back to her room to negotiate, and then quoting to her the averages I found in previous surveys. This is not good negotiating strategy, a topic I usually prefer not to give advice on. If you are a fellow who has never been to a legal Nevada brothel before, just treat the information in this survey as what it is, simple information about what other guys have paid. The lady you negotiate with sets her own rates, however she sees fit. As people are fond of saying about the services this profession provides, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). Be an informed customer, but also be on your best behavior and treat your lady nicely.

Be seeing you.

Bashful


The following are links to other content on the Sex-In-Nevada website :

IMPORTANT LINKS
SIN MESSAGE BOARD
WEEKLY SUMMARY
CWMCM#8
NYE#2
NEVADA PROSTITUTION LAWS


[ E-MAIL BASHFUL | HOME PAGE ]