Final2.SophiaDuvallLogo instagram twitter-logo-silhouette

By Sophia Duvall, Apr 20 2017 02:31PM

Recently a topic came up in conversation with someone who is very important to me, and I wanted to share my thoughts in response to their question because I thought that others in the demimonde might toil with it sometimes, too. (NB: many thanks to the person who posed the question and subsequently gave me permission to post my response.)


Q: How do you manage any increasing emotional feelings you may have toward someone, knowing that the reciprocal will never happen? How should we as clients learn to not overstep that emotional boundary while still engaging in intimacy?


A: I can never decide whether I am a "romantic" or not. I say that because I love easily, strongly, and often - I always have, and I only become more inclined that way as I grow older. I experience and express many types of love on a daily, often hourly basis. In that way I am a diehard romantic, and have been since childhood. But I know that love is not enough to make a particular kind of relationship (or the pursuit thereof) work-able, or even a good idea. That being said, my recognition of certain limited applications of love does not mean I am any less likely to love.


There is nothing inherently wrong with having feelings for one another as client and companion. Indeed, depending on the nature of the situation, exploring those connections can make this adventure more fun and more fulfilling and, depending on our chemistry, can feel natural and effortless. To me, the management of those feelings boils down to specific expectations. Society teaches us that if we feel a certain way about someone, then that is (or should be) automatically coupled with the pursuit of a specific kind of relationship with them. If we feel infatuated, or in love, or drunk on oxytocin - then we are expected to take the relationship escalator with them, which ultimately deposits us on the ‘top floor’ of relationships, so to speak. That is, we wind up in the most idealised version of a normative relationship with them, which includes: monogamy, co-habitation, marriage, and probably reproduction/children.


From my perspective, I try to remember the myriad beautiful relationships and connections we can have when we accept that most of them don’t and never will fit into that particular mould. I have had several relatively long-term romantic relationships so far in my life, given my age. Some of those relationships have tended toward the Escalator model but many haven’t. However, ultimately the presence of the Escalator had nothing to do with how meaningful those relationships were to me, how much they influenced me and my worldview, or how formative they were. I have also had the incredible privilege to have extremely significant, loving relationships that were neither romantic nor sexual in nature.


Most clients would not consider asking for something akin to a marital/normative relationship with a companion, particularly since many of them are already married anyway (and often - though certainly not always - happily so). However, given that many of the images of "romance" that we are inundated with seem to only envisage one type of relationship - the Escalator Relationship - it can be so easy for our thoughts to turn wistfully in that direction in a moment of powerful and seemingly perfect connection.


I am extraordinarily fond of some of my clients, sometimes overwhelmingly so. I manage those emotions by recognising that the situation in which we find ourselves is very likely the one in which we can best experience that wonderful connection. It is incredibly unlikely that we would have met in another way, much less have the liberty and safe space in which we would be free to explore this type of chemistry. In my opinion and my own experience, the distinctiveness of those connections typically (though not always) disappears when people attempt to turn them into more formal, normative relationships. Thus, I try to remember that what we have is truly remarkable and unique to a specific, bounded situation. I would recommend a similar approach for clients.


That is certainly not to say that clients and companions should not ever choose to explore their connection as intimate partners in the sphere of their personal lives. Sometimes they get married and have children - they take the Escalator together - and that is indeed what makes them happiest. However, the circumstances in which that is desirable, much less possible, are typically extremely few and far between.


I want more recognition that love and intimacy can develop, grow, and thrive in this world. I believe that keeping such feelings safely bounded within a deeply and mutually reverential client-companion relationship doesn’t diminish but rather ameliorates them, and indeed, us.


By Sophia Duvall, May 8 2016 05:00AM

Most of you who've met me before, or who have followed me on twitter for some time, will likely know that I'm a philanthropically-minded person. With this in mind, I've decided to incentivise my clientele to donate to charities that are close to my heart. When you make a £100 donation to a charity of my choice, I will take £50 off the total rate for our date. If you make a £200 donation, I will take £100 off the rate of our date. For a £500 donation, I will take £200 off the rate for our date (applies to dates of 8 hours or longer).


The charities of my choice are:


Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders)


Amnesty International


The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria


Sex Worker Open University


National Ugly Mugs


Please forward me your email receipt from one of the above organisations to have the special rate applied. NB: when we meet, you will need to log onto your bank app or credit card to show me the charge. I want to know for sure that the donation was actually made to one of the above organisations.

By Sophia Duvall, Nov 29 2015 06:00AM

Being an independent companion has facilitated so many good things in my life. Doing this has meant that I am able to control all aspects of my life - and I can pay my tuition without going into further debt (amazing!). I get to explore many aspects of myself, and I have the great fortune to meet amazing people from all over the world. I'm incredibly grateful for the wonderful gents who've come into my life, and the fellow fantastic companions I've had the great fortune to meet over the past year. To admit the cliché: I adore doing what I do!


All that being said, I am very much a part-time companion and I have many other pursuits in my life. My academic commitments are becoming more demanding for me as the months go by, and I am concentrating on my freelance consulting work more and more. I don't want companionship to take a 'back seat' per se; instead I am re-structuring a few things to better reflect and accommodate my personality and the shape of my life.


Hourly engagements/donations: My minimum booking is now two hours and I will be concentrating more on dinner dates and extended engagements. (Worry not, 1-hour and 90-minute dates will still be available to busy gents of industry who I have already met.) I favour outcalls, but I will certainly still have spaces available to accommodate incalls with adequate notice. Please familiarise yourself with the new streamlined structure on my donations page. I have enjoyed meeting people through 1-hour appointments, but longer appointments suit my personality and lifestyle better. We're both going to be more relaxed and have a better time because of it.


References: I am also giving preference to prospective clients who come with references from two other companions with a verifiable web presence, preferably those they've seen in the past 6 months but at most the past 12 months. You'll need to let the ladies know to expect a reference check from me via email. Many high-end companions throughout the world utiise the reference system, so most should be familiar with this process already. I am always happy to be a reference for gents I have previously seen. Simply email me to let me know you'd like to do so, and inform me which companion I can expect to hear from. I will not respond to reference requests out of the blue without warning from you or from companions who don't have a verifiable web presence, because the lady in question could be anybody (including one of your family members doing some *ahem* independent investigation). Discretion is absolutely paramount to me. The reference system is in place to help keep companions safe, and I am all for it. I am not possessive, and I am happy to facilitate your ability to see another lady, so please don't hesitate to contact me for a reference.


That's all for now… until next time.

By Sophia Duvall, Nov 15 2015 06:00PM

As you may or may not know, I’ve become a relatively active user of twitter in recent months (follow me here, if you don't already). I love connecting with other companions and clients there, and I enjoy the free flow of information and flirtation. It stimulates both the exhibitionist and the voyeur in me, subtle as they both usually are. In any case, I recently tweeted a poll from my account, out of curiosity about this new feature that had just been rolled out on twitter. I decided to ask a particular question that often comes up in the demimonde: specifically, the question of reviews. Do clients prefer to see a companion who accepts reviews and has some floating out there on the internet, or do they prefer to see a companion who doesn’t take them at all? In the UK, where I primarily reside, it is highly unusual for a lady not to take reviews. It’s far more common in the US, for some reason (potentially legal ramifications). I have complex feelings on reviews, which I’ll get to, a bit later on.


In any case, 59 people responded to the poll. 64% of respondents voted that they preferred to see a companion who has/takes reviews, whereas 36% voted that they prefer to see a companion who doesn’t take reviews. Frankly I was surprised at the number of people who 1) responded at all, and 2) responded that they preferred to see companions who don’t take reviews. In both cases, it was far higher turnout than I expected. Fifty-nine votes is a small sample, yet also a relatively high number for a single person without a huge following on twitter (at the time of the poll I had just over 600 followers). I know of large organisations that put out polls to their members, and get far fewer responses!


Clients who prefer reviews tend to be vocal about it; and up until this point, I’d never heard specific opinions vocalised by a client who preferred to see someone who doesn’t take reviews, hence my surprise. However I am aware from other colleagues who don’t take reviews that there is a whole section of the population who engage companions who would prefer to see someone who doesn’t accept reviews. Indeed, I am curious to know more about them.


Back to the poll: there are a number of limitations and biases to consider. For example, construct validity: does the poll measure what it purports to measure? The poll itself is simplistic. When I made it, I was limited to a short question, with only two short responses. Secondly, I was not allowed the space in the poll to present any nuance in the questions. There was no option to say e.g. “yes, I prefer a companion who has reviews, but only a limited number of reviews and only a certain level of detail.” People may have been on the fence, but were forced to choose one way or the other if they wanted to participate. In any case, construct validity here is potentially weak.


Another concern is sample selection bias. Were the people who responded only those with very strong opinions? Likely, especially since the poll required respondents to pick a preference. i.e. there was no option for indifference. Were people with certain characteristics more likely to respond than others? Who were the people who saw the poll? Were they people who specifically follow me, or did they find the poll via a retweet from another account? I know of several clients who read my twitter feed, but don’t actually follow it, therefore weren't able to vote; I would certainly be curious as to how they would respond.


My own opinion on reviews is mixed. I recognise that there are a lot of companions out there in the world – there’s a little something (or rather, somebody!) for everyone. When seeking the company of such a lady, you look at a lot of websites and profiles, wondering who is the right one for you. I can see that reviews could give you an impression of what someone is generally like, and whether you might like what they have to offer or not. However I find that review culture lends itself to reviewing a menu of services, rather than a whole experience. I personally don’t offer a menu of services (nor do many of my colleagues), rather I offer an experience based on specific chemistry. I offer intimacy that is both cerebral and sensual, intellectual and carnal, and it is very different with each and every person I meet; this can be difficult indeed to capture in a review. Not only that, but some review sites ask you to rate providers out of 10, and the more services they offer the higher they can be rated; as you might imagine, this puts pressure on companions to offer services they might not be comfortable with. Rating human beings out of 10 is problematic, in a few ways. Not the least is that what is a fine wine to one person can taste too heavy or too sweet to another.


So far, I am lightly reviewed and generally tastefully so. In most ways, I am a private person, and the demimonde is no exception. I realise there is some tension between my desire for privacy and my desire to let people know what they can generally anticipate when they see me. This is a significant reason why I write blog posts and use twitter. It provides a little bit of insight into my mind and interests, which perhaps give you some idea of what our chemistry together could be like. For the time being I will continue to accept reviews, but that might change at some point in the not-too-distant future. I would much prefer to focus entirely on my companion in the moments we are together, and let nothing else matter or enter our mind.


By Sophia Duvall, Nov 7 2015 06:00PM

I'm in the midst of writing a fairly heavy analytical blog entry, but I thought in the meantime I'd create something a bit lighter for you all to enjoy. Here are 10 things you didn't know about me:


1. I am a preacher’s daughter. Yes, there are endless jokes you could crack about this, and no, it doesn’t really get old.

2. I used to work in Tajikistan.

3. At present, I am a dedicated omnivore. I was a vegetarian for 13 years.

4. I have had a subscription to the Economist since I was 15 years old.

5. I have a passion for statistics.

6. The back of the neck is one of the sexiest places on the body, in my opinion.

7. I am a devotee of the Oxford comma.

8. I had my first threesome when I was 17.

9. My favourite art museum is the Musée d’Orsay.

10. I am a third culture kid.

By Sophia Duvall, Mar 19 2015 06:00PM

Someone recently asked me why I chose to be independent companion. I provide a similar experience to companions working for upscale agencies in London and NYC, and sometimes going through agencies seems to be quicker and easier. This conversation sparked the thought that some people who visit my site might wonder the same, particularly if they’ve found me via directories that primarily consist of agency women. The intent of this post isn’t to critique escort agencies or the women who work for them. I can see the appeal in working for agencies, and have considered it myself.


I discovered that the answer to this question is a bit too long too fit into my FAQ:


My enthusiasm for being independent comes from my commitment to enjoying myself just as much as the person I am meeting. I adore giving pleasure and am adept at it, but enjoying myself as well is part and parcel of genuinely high-quality girlfriend companionship. Being independent means I can assess each prospective new friend for compatibility, and only elect to meet those who intrigue me. Women working for agencies often don’t have that luxury. Agencies will screen clients, but they won’t be able to discern intuitively or intellectually whether they’ll actually be compatible with a companion.


I also have a different aesthetic than many women working for agencies. I’m told that I’m elegant and stunning, but I’m petite, not tall like a runway model; my breasts are substantial and perky, but I don’t have implants (not that there’s anything wrong with implants, mind!); my hair is shorter and perhaps a bit more sophisticated than you typically see in women working for agencies. I’m happy and confident in the way I look, and I don’t want to work for an employer that could require me to change that. As an independent my look can stay true to me. If anything about my aesthetic changes, you can be sure it’s my choice and something I want to do.


If I agree to meet you, we’re very likely going to have a fantastic time together because something about you sets off that spark in me. And obviously, if you’ve written to me, something about me intrigues you as well, whether it’s my petite stature, my all-natural figure, my love of museums and old objects, or my somewhat dry offbeat sense of humour. This is why putting in the time and effort to write a substantive introduction is so important. When you first get into contact with me, you’re a complete mystery to me. Alas, I'm not able to assess compatibility with complete mysteries! If someone writes to me and shares a bit about themselves and what makes them smile, I can assess compatibility. I’ll be able to tell how well we’ll connect intellectually and carnally.


Most of my prospective friends seeking to pay for a liaison are not seeking a contrived performance. I'm always viewed as a person, not a performer. I do this for pleasure and as a vocation. As an independent, I always emphasise the pleasure aspect of participation in this demimonde, and I never need to pretend. If I agree to meet you, you can be certain I want to meet you. This means the connection we’ll develop is far more likely to be genuine, and therefore mind-blowing.

By Sophia Duvall, Sep 9 2014 05:54AM

I know I have expensive taste because two of the great loves of my life (so far) are London and New York City. I've grappled with my love of these two places, particularly over the past year. I’ve felt called to force myself to choose between them, to settle on just one. For a long time now I’ve believed you can love more than one person at once, so I haven't understood this particular urge of mine. To love more than one place is consistent with my stance on virtually everything else in life.


Then I realised that the urge to choose stems from the painful pang of always missing a place, even when I'm somewhere I love. I’ve poured over the various comparisons between the two cities trying to find an answer to this dilemma. I’ve concluded that virtually everything that could be said in comparing the two has already been said, so I won’t try to do that here. Quora is particularly comprehensive and thorough in its review of the cities as well as the temperaments of the people who live there. If you’re a lover of both London and NYC like me, you will lose yourself in the Quora comparisons for hours.


My main conclusion is that the two cities, and their residents, are far more different than I ever initially imagined. They are both Home for me, and moving between them is both disconcerting and disorienting. I re-shape my expectations and adapt each time I move between the two. New York is fast and furious, and London is a slow, passionate burn. I love them both, in different ways – in ways that make me contradict myself – but I won’t choose between them. My life would be less full if I only had one or the other.


Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.

-Walt Whitman

By Sophia Duvall, Jul 7 2014 10:00AM

I'm an unabashed introvert. I always have been. So, why do I love meeting people in this fashion, despite my introversion? While I do enjoy my own company, being introverted does not mean I don't love to socialise. I very much do, I simply prefer certain modes of socialising over others. I delight in connecting with other people. The long slow seduction, the chase, the eye contact, the expectant silences. Some people think of these as 'uncomfortable silences', but I never look at them this way. You can find out a lot about someone, and how you are together, by occasionally or even regularly sitting in silence.


Big, loud parties can deter this type of connection for an introvert. The best route to a mutually satisfying connection is building a deep rapport, which takes time and space. It doesn’t necessarily take a lot of time or a very specific kind of space. It means spending time in the right environment, and I find that this world provides that environment for me.


In case you hadn’t already picked up on it from other areas of my site, I’m a massive foodie. Food is one of the ultimate sensual experiences for me. Going to an amazing restaurant is the type of shared experience that builds deep rapport relatively quickly. Music is another way to do this. Remember those expectant silences? Music fills the silence, but it only builds the anticipation.


My experience is that the world is mostly built for extroverts, so I adore finding a gentleman or woman who appreciates what an introvert brings to the table. Since up to 75% of my fellow Americans are extroverts, I think of myself as a bit of a rarity. This doesn't mean that I don't love to converse, or even make small talk. On the contrary, I've been told that my contemplative nature and grounding presence provides a warm and inviting atmosphere to make exciting, new connections.


When I was little, although sweet, quiet and generally obedient, I was never one to shy away from adventure. I was always asking questions and trying out things I was told I probably shouldn't. More often than not, this approach to life has resulted in reward for me. As an adventurous introvert, I have rarely been disappointed.

By Sophia Duvall, Jun 9 2014 08:00AM

Last month I went to an exhibition at the Louvre in Paris that showcased several of the works that will be included in the new Louvre museum in Abu Dhabi, opening in 2015. The curation was fascinating and unlike any I’d seen before. The concept is simple and obvious once you see it: Abu Dhabi is a meeting place of cultures and civilisations from all around the world, and the museum reflects that incredibly well. The curation focuses on periods of time as opposed to a particular part of the world, so it juxtaposes works of art from different regions from roughly the same period, as opposed to having separate sections for different regions as is done in most of the great museums and galleries in the world. The juxtaposition clearly demonstrates the differences between the regions, but more importantly the similarities, and how they influenced one another.


Some objects that particularly caught my eye were the Buddha heads – one from northern China from either the Henan to Shandong, Eastern Wei Dynasty (534-550 CE) or the Northern Qui Dynasty (550-77 CE), and the other from the northern Indian Mathers region (Gupta period, 5th century). Both Buddha heads were exactly the same size but the features clearly reflected their region of origin. Some of my other favourites included works from the Ottoman artist Hamdi Bey, as well as Picasso’s Portrait of a Lady. The finale of the exhibition was two luscious side-by-side works from 1960: Kazno Shiraga’s “Chrisire Kyubuki” and Yves Klein’s “Anthropometry”, which was a fantastic conclusion. By the time I walked out, my brain was buzzing. To say that I felt a little high from this curation is not an exaggeration.


The curation brought to mind a quote from the renowned Indian economist Amartya Sen, from the first podcast in the BBC’s History of the World series:

'I think what is really very important to recognise is that, when we look at the history of the world, we're not looking at the history of different civilisations truncated and separated from each other. They've a huge amount of contact with each other, there is a kind of inter-connectedness. So I've always felt, not to think of the history of the world as a history of civilisations, but as a history of world civilisations evolving in often similar, often diverse ways, always interacting with each other. And this is a very different view from the clash of civilisations to which we were exposed some years ago, as a way to understand enmity in the world. Enmity has not been the general condition of the relationship between people across the world in history.'


No other curation in any other museum has been able to communicate this message so clearly to me. Warfare and violence do not define humankind. At least, I choose to not see it that way. We've influenced one another across the distances and ages in astonishingly beautiful ways. Apart from that, challenging environments have often inspired the most illuminating art. We can witness this all the way back to the Paleolithic era. It was an incredibly difficult time for human kind, living through a blistering Ice Age. And yet, cave paintings and carvings appeared. Was this in spite of or because of the challenges the artists were facing? As a lifelong student of the human sciences, I would argue that it must be both.

By Sophia Duvall, May 9 2014 10:00AM

Usually I'm not keen on it, when people start entries with obscurant titles, but the phrase just fit. In French, bon séjour means to have a nice stay, it does not mean to have a a nice visit. To me, having a nice stay means finding a way to feel a bit at home, and at ease in my environment. It's a feeling I pursue often: to stay a while, not necessarily just visit briefly and then dash off.


I'm spending the week in Paris, exploring the many museums and galleries at my fingertips as well as the best food in the world. Today I saw a special exhibition at the Louvre showcasing the collection at the new Louvre Abu Dhabi. It was one of the most expertly curated exhibitions I have ever seen. Stay tuned for a blogpost dedicated to exactly why I loved it so much.


Watch this space for a retrospective on my trip! I'm headed to the South of France next, and then Montréal. I suspect I'll have much to share, though how much I'll be able to do so publicly I cannot yet say…

Blog