The glory days of the HDH are over.

[woodyboyd]

"You see, some of us are content with seeing a handful of guys that will ensure an income of 5k/month, rather than 5k/week."

"So keep a look out and you will meet the right lady."

Gia, I have too many women not too few. Things must be different down in Dallas than in Minnesota. The reason that I started this thread was that I was seeing a huge change in price. Back in 2002, I would go to a gentleman's club and find an attractive and intelligent woman, and it would be extremely difficult for me to get to see her out of the club. At one time, I was paying $500 to $1000 a night just to date a woman with no hope of sex. I was just so infatuated with her. And for the record, I wasn't the only guy doing that with her.

At the time, I thought that I wanted a mistress, and I was quoted rates of between $5000 and $10,000 per month by two separate women. This again was back in 2002 or so. One of these women was extremely intelligent. The other could have been a model for Victoria Secret.

Fast forward to today, and I met from the SD site, seeking arrangement, a stunning blonde Nordic Goddess. Given her tastes, I thought she would want $10k a month. She wanted $3k, was having trouble finding it, and she was the highest priced one I met. Most SBs want between $1000 and $2000 per month.

Halle Berry wanted and got $2k per month for two months. That was the most I have paid any SB, and I only did it for two months, and I won't again. Paying in advance is not something I will do until I know someone for at least a year.

As of now, I have described a woman who has been told she looks like Angle Everhart. I pay her $400, and she usually stays as long I want her to and takes care of me as many times as I want. I also have similar situations with other women of similar intelligence and quality. My SB harem if you will includes includes women who look like Jessica Alba, Jennifer Love Hewitt, and Brittney Spears. Furthermore, I have Salma Hayek and Susan Sarandon dopplegangers on deck if things slow down with the first four.

Now some have accused me of bragging and that is their right, but I am not delusional. These women are seeing me way more for my money than for me. Still, my phone has been blowing up so often that I probably need to cut what I am paying down to $300 per session.

For those stuffy male fools who don't visit the locker rooms, they would be stunned to learn some men are paying even less than I do. One said he paid $100 per session. That is possible. Some of these women like I said were only asking for $1000 to $1500 per month, and if the guy sees her ten times or so, the math works.

And before anyone gets the idea that these women are trailer trash tramps, Angie is in school studying to be a lawyer. JLH is a semester away from a nursing degree, and Jessica Alba is a full time trainer and a black belt in karate.

What I am finding is that I can go into any Hooters, Twin Peaks, or Strip club and ask if a woman is on a SB site. In my experience, about half are. When I contact said women, half of those will agree to meet me. It was definitely not like this eight or ten years ago.

JLH is a stripper, and she honestly admits the reason she sees me is because "there is no money in stipping anymore."

The HDH in her 30s and 40s today probably does not get how rough it is for women in their early 20s today. Unlike the early roaring 2000s, most don't get jobs out of school and are saddled with debt.

In financial circles, a banking analyst named Meredith Whitney has gotten a lot of fame for getting the financials right. She uncovered a lot of the banks bogus accounting, but her mentor was a guy named Steve Eisman. Eisman is a crass man who is brutally honest and he bet against the subprime lenders and made a killing. Eisman thought he never again would see such financial corruption in his life, but he admitted he was wrong. He has said that student loans are worse than subprime mortgages ever were.

Angie and I were talking about this the other day. She was going to get student loans, and I warned her not to get in too deep. Unlike with a mortgage loan, with student loans, the lenders have virtually unlimited access to your wages and assets.

When I went to a state school in the 80s, tuition was $300 per semester. Now it is at least five times that amount and in some private schools, 50X that amount. Few people had to live with being the indentured slave the typical student is today.

Angie is 23, and I told her that women in her generation had a choice. They could either get fucked by Sallie Mae or fucked by a guy like me. She laughed and said, " I'll choose the latter. Fucking you is a lot more fun."

Bottom line is this Gia. If you can get $5k a week, you better get it while you can. IMO it is not going to last.

[guest012511]

Originally Posted by Camille

So true Hannah!
I knew who VP was before I knew who JD was.
Do you remember, "Joe le Taxi?" Wow..that's a longgggg time ago lol.
She's very involved in their other companies outside of the film industry and word has it that she knows how to make a mean bottle of bordeaux on that vineyard of theirs. Anyone up for a wine tasting trip ?

C x

Camille: I've yet to listen to Joe le Taxi...still have Divine Idylle on hyper replay.
<----those are for the wine tasting trip. Anyone else?

[Camille]

Woody:

A sugar baby as I understand it, is looking for some guaranteed income. Whether it's $200, $2000 or $200k...it's a fixed income. There are MANY MANY men AND women out there that do not want to commit to a relationship based on a fixed income..whether it's with one of more than one person. That is the biggest flaw in your argument. For them, the SB model would not work. They want freedom not commitment and a part of that freedom is not having their phone blowing up all day long.

Camille

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Camille

Woody:

A sugar baby as I understand it, is looking for some guaranteed income. Whether it's $200, $2000 or $200k...it's a fixed income. There are MANY MANY men AND women out there that do not want to commit to a relationship based on a fixed income..whether it's with one of more than one person. That is the biggest flaw in your argument. For them, the SB model would not work. They want freedom not commitment and a part of that freedom is not having their phone blowing up all day long.

Camille

True true true but that is only one side of the equation.

What I want for a house and what the buyers is willing to give are two different things. I think what woody's point is that there is a changing dynamic underway. The question is, will more option change the market to a degree? I think it will and it has...look at clock free options.

Here is a summary of one part of chapter one in SuperFreakonomics.

http://freakonomicsbook.com/superfre...pts/chapter-1/

Imagine a young man, just out of college but not ready to settle down, who wants to have some sex. In de cades past, prostitution was a likely option. Although illegal, it was never hard to find, and the risk of arrest was minuscule. While relatively expensive in the short term, it provided good long- term value because it didn’t carry the potential costs of an unwanted pregnancy or a marriage commitment. At least20 percent of American men born between 1933 and 1942 had their first sexual intercourse with a prostitute.
Now imagine that same young man twenty years later. The shift in sexual mores has given him a much greater supply of unpaid sex. In his generation, only 5 percent of men lose their virginity to a prostitute. And it’s not that he and his friends are saving themselves for marriage. More than 70 percent of the men in his generation have sex before they marry, compared with just 33 percent in the earlier generation.
So premarital sex emerged as a viable substitute for prostitution. And as the demand for paid sex decreased, so too did the wage of the people who provide it.

[Camille]

WTF I understand what you are saying (and yes, I was a good girl..I read the excerpt you quoted too) but I'm not talking about the availability of sex. I couldn't agree more with you (and the writer) that such availability has changed dramatically over the years and will continue to do so.
The vast majoraty of my clients are married. They prefer escorts because they are not committed to anything more than the time they spend with her. A paid ongoing relationship forms binding ties that they just don't want. A fear for many men who shy away from the unpaid ongoing relationship (affair) is the threat it may pose to the marriage if feelings get out of control. Money sets boundaries. Supposedly...though it doesn't always work admittedly. Conversely, as a woman, I enjoy my freedom too and hope to attract gentleman that value the same qualities. I'm just not ready to commit to anything that is either emotionally or financially binding at this point. It's not about the availability of sex. It's about freedom and people will pay for the freedom they want. You get that from an escort..not a SB. Ot let me re-phrase that. You get a higher degree of freedom from an escort you see, but have no ties to (i.e.no ongoing arrangement) than you would an SB you have an arrangement with. Some men are willing to pay a higher rate for exclusivity...some for freedom..and women some women are available to provider those solutions. Value is in the eye of the beholder for both parties. Would some people think paying for exclusivity or freedom is too costly? Yes, absolutely...but usually because they are looking for neither. They are considering price first and foremost. Not wrong, just different.

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Oh noour esteemed "Super Moderator" is trying to define an HDHWhere is the "popcorn" smilie when you need it?

He goes where wise men fear to tread!

Originally Posted by Leah Ireland

The 'HDHs' that dominated ASPD and this board have not been like that all. In fact 'fair' would be the best report I generally got from most clients who also knew them.

Even I am not stupid enough to comment on that one, Leah.

Originally Posted by Camille

And can I just add...how the hell does he wear so well?
He's 47 for goodness sake. He looks the same as he did 15 years ago.
Yeah...he's scrumptious

See what you started JB

And PJ..I saw that ass comment cheeky lol

xx

I did it, I did it and I'm glad.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Camille

WTF I understand what you are saying (and yes, I was a good girl..I read the excerpt you quoted too) but I'm not talking about the availability of sex. I couldn't agree more with you (and the writer) that such availability has changed dramatically over the years and will continue to do so.
The vast majoraty of my clients are married. They prefer escorts because they are not committed to anything more than the time they spend with her. A paid ongoing relationship forms binding ties that they just don't want. A fear for many men who shy away from the unpaid ongoing relationship (affair) is the threat it may pose to the marriage if feelings get out of control. Money sets boundaries. Supposedly...though it doesn't always work admittedly. Conversely, as a woman, I enjoy my freedom too and hope to attract gentleman that value the same qualities. I'm just not ready to commit to anything that is either emotionally or financially binding at this point. It's not about the availability of sex. It's about freedom and people will pay for the freedom they want. You get that from an escort..not a SB. Ot let me re-phrase that. You get a higher degree of freedom from an escort you see, but have no ties to (i.e.no ongoing arrangement) than you would an SB you have an arrangement with. Some men are willing to pay a higher rate for exclusivity...some for freedom..and women some women are available to provider those solutions. Value is in the eye of the beholder for both parties. Would some people think paying for exclusivity or freedom is too costly? Yes, absolutely...but usually because they are looking for neither. They are considering price first and foremost. Not wrong, just different.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Woodyboyd, you make some interesting points in that post. But as someone who has participated in both the HDH and SB model, I can unequivocally state that they are not the same "product" (no offense ladies).

The key difference in my mind is "professionalism", the HDH ladies show up at the appointed time for a delightful date without any baggage. IMO, sugar babies not so much. They are often dabblers at this, with no sense of punctuality or the value of your time. Drama is often and ever present.

For someone who has limited time resources to devote to these endeavors, the HDH model, despite the higher price, is probably worth it.

If your limits are more monetary and time is plentiful, try the SB route. But be real careful of attachment. Sometimes the price of items is not stated up front.

Originally Posted by WTF

woody, I agree with PJ. I also agree with your premises. This is still an illegal enterprise and even if it weren't you still have married men participating. That is where the premium comes in. (no pun intended)

I agree with ya Cammy and said as much on page 15, hell I even agreed with PJ!

I just happen to think we are all right, though we are coming at it from different angles.

For example back to selling homes. They still sell Log Cabins. Go to Aspen, some are really really pricey but they do not sell them for a whole lot without electricity and all the amnities. So if woody is trying to say that nobody will buy a Log Cabin he probably is wrong and if people are trying to say that you can still sell a Log Cabin for very much without electricity they are wrong too.

[Camille]

Originally Posted by WTF

I agree with ya Cammy and said as much on page 15,

Page 15? Your expectations of my ability to remember anything past 1/2 page ago just got dashed. I'm flattered though

xxx

[woodyboyd]

Originally Posted by Camille

The vast majority of my clients are married. They prefer escorts because they are not committed to anything more than the time they spend with her.

A paid ongoing relationship forms binding ties that they just don't want. A fear for many men who shy away from the unpaid ongoing relationship (affair) is the threat it may pose to the marriage if feelings get out of control.

You get that from an escort..not a SB. Ot let me re-phrase that. You get a higher degree of freedom from an escort you see, but have no ties to (i.e.no ongoing arrangement) than you would an SB you have an arrangement with. Some men are willing to pay a higher rate for exclusivity...some for freedom. Would some people think paying for exclusivity or freedom is too costly? Yes, absolutely...but usually because they are looking for neither. They are considering price first and foremost. Not wrong, just different.

I didn't address this, and it was first poised by PJ. Yes, SBs are different from escorts, however like my analogy to CDs and MP3s, you are paying money for sex just like you are paying money for music. So they are different but also alike.

If you follow the conventional SB model, then yes commitment and relationship building are part of it. However, there is no reason that model has to be followed. Unless there is a lot of trust with the client, the HDH and escort have to follow a set protocol. If they don't, they can be called out on review boards for their inconsistencies.

OTOH, because the SD SB relationship is between two people, the usual rules do not have to apply. We can create whatever relationship we want. There are no rules on how much time I have to spend per hour, how long she stays, how intimate we have to be ETC.

The problems with the HDH then are a lack of intimacy and a standard performance. (Don't get me wrong. The standard performance can be toe curling.) The problems with the SB are dependence and drama.

The model Shyster John has with his SBs did not work for me because I did not have the free time that he did. With a few exceptions, I want my rendezvouses to be over in a few hours.

In my case, a SB-escort hybrid has worked well for me. In hindsight, I realize that I have taken the best part of the escort business (sex for money without the emotional drama) and the best part of the SB model (true and unique intimacy with another person) and combined them. If the SB is overly dependent or greedy, I have sent her packing.

I have found a lot of women who want to have sex for money, but they want to be more selective in whom they see and not be labeled as an escort. These women make ideal SBs and FWIW, I think the number of said women is growing.

Again, I am just one guy. Still, you have to wonder how many men are going to file the same path that I have, discover these women, and start using the SB as a more intimate type of escort.

[Leah Ireland]

Woodyboyd;

"Again, I am just one guy. Still, you have to wonder how many men are going to file the same path that I have, discover these women, and start using the SB as a more intimate type of escort."

Thus helping lower the fees of escorts and the power of women in general. Bummer!

[Sydneyb]

Originally Posted by Leah Ireland

Woodyboyd;

Thus helping lower the fees of escorts and the power of women in general.

And that, I have said since my first reply, is exactly what I believe is the OPs desired outcome. Seriously, if you're that successful in business and getting laid via (the superior??) SB model; why bother with the diatribe here?

Of course, if you aren't so successful, you may try to intimidate women until they bow to your desires.

Should some people change their business models? Sure! They'll figure it out when life (and their pocketbooks) tell them so. ...but my guess is that the OP is trying to manipulate the market by fear. Not the first time - or the last - its happened. Sort of sad, really.

[Laurentius]

Originally Posted by Leah Ireland

Woodyboyd;

"Again, I am just one guy. Still, you have to wonder how many men are going to file the same path that I have, discover these women, and start using the SB as a more intimate type of escort."

Thus helping lower the fees of escorts and the power of women in general. Bummer!

Okay, I'm a bit confused. Using this logic, if a bunch of guys renewed their efforts to fix their marriages and stopped hobbying as a result, I can see how it would lower the cost of some escorts, but how would it lower the power of women in general?

It isn't well-known, but prostitution was widely legal in this country until organized women's groups composed mainly of married women such as the WCTU successfully lobbied for it's criminalization. Clearly, those women saw prostitution as a threat to *their* power. It seems to me that it's not about women in general; but about WHICH women have how much power.

So if a bunch of married guys started hobbying, it might increase the rates and relative power of escorts; but at the expense of the power married women wield through legal sex monopoly. If they stopped hobbying, the power would simply shift back to married women.

Same thing with SBs. If a guys stops seeing escorts and works out a deal with a SB -- she has gained money and power; and the ladies he stops patronizing might lose some -- but only if they have no clients to replace him which is seldom the case. It would take a LOT of guys switching to SBs to have an appreciable effect on escorts; and many of them might even shift to the SB model at that point and thus would not be personally less empowered.

So I don't see a guy deciding to renew his fidelity to his mate, paying an SB instead of escorts or even choosing to have sex with a civie lady instead of an escort (something I may do once in a while) as unempowering to women generally. Where one woman may lose, another gains.

And I don't think that approach poses any risk whatsoever to the HDH business model.

Personally, I see the existence of HDHs as proof that the model works. The free market is merciless, so if the model didn't work it would be marginalized or driven out of the market in short order. So I see the existence of HDHs as proof that the model has merit.

That market exists DESPITE the fact that most hobbyists take other paths. It seems to me that is sort of the whole idea. Most people need pens, but there are pens at a variety of price points. I'm sure if I went looking for it, I could find pens costing thousands of dollars. But I'm just not in that market. The most I usually spend is $10 and mostly I spend less than $1.

Pretend for a moment that my budget for an appointment is $1000. Pretend that you charge $2000. You never had my business, because your rates were never within my budget. You never had access to my money, so when I spend it elsewhere it does not affect you. Therefore, you cannot be harmed by my hobbying decisions. I can't lower your fees or "women in general" by spending my money elsewhere, as you never wanted it. If I decide to quit hobbying, work out a deal with an SB, switch to seeing a civie lady or whatever -- it doesn't hurt you. Besides, it is fundamentally MY money which I earned; and nobody is entitled to it. My decisions in how it will be allocated to further my own best interests, just like a woman's choices in sex partner, are really beyond question.

My understanding of the HDH model -- and my understanding is likely imperfect because I'm not an HDH -- is that the whole point is essentially lower volume. By deliberately restricting the pool of men able or willing to pay the rate; the number of customers declines but the amount of money collected from each one increases.

The whole point is decreased volume.

So lets say my budget is set at no more than $1k/session; and I have been seeing a lady who charges $900.

Pretend she raises her rate to $1,200 which is beyond my budget.

When she asks when I'll be seeing her next, I say "I'm not, I'll be seeing someone else because your rates now exceed my budget."

Have I somehow harmed her or disempowered her? Of course not!

When she raised her rates, she did so with the full knowledge that by doing so she would lose some of her customers; and that those that remained plus certain new ones would pay her more.

In essence, my decision not to pony up an additional $300 for a session with her is something she not only anticipated but DESIRED.

I have not hurt her by taking my business, she has willingly surrendered it. If I then take that money and spend it either on providers at a lower price point, an SB or wining and dining civies -- it has not unempowered her because she actively chose to remove me from her market.

That's what I'm thinking, but I could be wrong.

[John Bull]

Laurentius, I think you're absolutely right. It also works from the otherside. If a hobbyist decides that the quality of providers at a certain price point, in his area, doesn't meet his needs or desires. And assuming he is able, he very well might increase his price point to include the HDH level of lady. At least those that now are within his price point.

[woodyboyd]

Originally Posted by Laurentius

Okay, I'm a bit confused. Using this logic, if a bunch of guys renewed their efforts to fix their marriages and stopped hobbying as a result, I can see how it would lower the cost of some escorts, but how would it lower the power of women in general?

It isn't well-known, but prostitution was widely legal in this country until organized women's groups composed mainly of married women such as the WCTU successfully lobbied for it's criminalization. Clearly, those women saw prostitution as a threat to *their* power. It seems to me that it's not about women in general; but about WHICH women have how much power.

That's what I'm thinking, but I could be wrong.

No, you are not wrong. What is happening right now is with the amount of wealth drying up, the people who have maintained their wealth have more power than ever, and women control more wealth than ever. See the link: http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/glob..._money_us.html

When unemployment goes from 5 to 10%, in general the laborer loses the ability to demand more money from management. When the rate goes from 10 to 5%, the laborer can demand more money.

These are the economic conditions that are forcing or will force escorts to lower their rates. If we see Dow 20,000 or 2000 square foot homes going for $1 million again, escorts will have their pricing power restored.

The irony about this is that the women who have objected the most to my describing the current economic conditions have retired and presumably have accumulated some wealth. The very economic conditions that allow men to pay escorts less are the same that allow them to pay men who provide labor services to them (CPA, lawyer, manual laborer ETC) less money.

To be sure, the current economic conditions are a negative for working escorts but a huge plus for those women who have made enough to retire.

[woodyboyd]

Originally Posted by Sydneyb

Should some people change their business models? Sure! They'll figure it out when life (and their pocketbooks) tell them so. ...but my guess is that the OP is trying to manipulate the market by fear. Not the first time - or the last - its happened. Sort of sad, really.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09...usehold-value/

"The value of US stock and housing equity fell 25.7% from the pre-crash peak (June 07) to the recent low – $65.8 trillion down to $48.8 trillion — a destruction of value of nearly $17 trillion dollars."

"On Friday, in the December unemployment report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the number of people out of work for 27 weeks or more hit 6.1 million Americans, or 40 percent of all 15.3 million jobless. This is the most since 1948, when the data was first recorded, according to the Department of Labor. On average, it now takes 20.5 weeks to find a new job – double the amount of time in the 1982-83 recession."

This data is six months old, but I think it makes the point.

Anyone interested in demographics can look here: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/country.php

What is sad Sydney is that someone who presents economic data that you do not like is beat up and called a prick and a troll. Instead of showing any remorse in your completely ridiculous assessment of my intentions, you further your delusion by adding to it. Do you think my post here is going to manipulate the escort market more than a $17 trillion loss of wealth and a loss of ten million jobs?

Originally Posted by Sydneyb

Of course, if you aren't so successful, you may try to intimidate women until they bow to your desires.

If I could intimidate women as you suggest, why would I pay them anything?