The glory days of the HDH are over.

Watch out, I just had my chainsaw sharpened Originally Posted by Becky

Hey, you never know when a chainsaw might come in handy! Just remember to sharpen the same number of strokes and the same angle from both sides or it'll cut crookedly.

Hey, you never know when a chainsaw might come in handy! Just remember to sharpen the same number of strokes and the same angle from both sides or it'll cut crookedly. Originally Posted by Laurentius

LOL, a chainsaw is a girls best friend

LOL, a chainsaw is a girls best friend Originally Posted by Becky

And large quantities of duct tape.

Lina

And large quantities of duct tape.

Lina Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

Sounds VERY VERY kinky!

Is the duct tape used to hold the lady to her queening chair?

....Many women seem to like being sugar babies because they don’t have to be obsessed with screening; it is semi-legal; they get much more control over selecting which men they like; they get a more consistent (but often smaller) amount of income. It is more work to get a sugar baby than a provider, but it can be a richer experience..... Originally Posted by woodyboyd

I could not agree more. I don't know that I would label myself as a SB (I'm too old! Sugar MILF, perhaps? ), but I am currently in an exclusive, mutually beneficial 'arrangement'. And I have come to the conclusion that if I am going to be a provider, for me, this is the only way to go. This is the third one I have been in, and even though it is less income than what I could make as a full time provider, it is far more rewarding to me than seeing multiple gentlemen on a day-in, day-out basis. When I am providing full time, I feel like I am spreading myself too thin. It's difficult for me to be 'on' all the time. I feel like I can be myself when exclusive to one hobbyist, instead of being a chameleon catering to widely varied hobbyist preferences every day....it's emotionally draining. The sex is better in my hobby relationship because we have had time to get to know each others likes and dislikes, and we have formed a close friendship...and isn't sex always better when you have some sort of 'closeness' or familiarity with the other person? I am happiest in these type of arrangements, it works for me, but we are all different.

Anyhow, sorry to pick apart your post! Yes, the days of the HDH are over. At least in Dallas, anyway. The market is flooded with talented ladies at reasonable rates.

Sugar MILF, perhaps? Originally Posted by Dannie

Yum, my favorite flavor!
MILFs rock and rock hard!

At least in Dallas, anyway. The market is flooded with talented ladies at reasonable rates. Originally Posted by Dannie

No caca...my weenie would fall off before I put even a slight a dent in my bank account if I lived in big 'D'.

If this has been covered in the past please forgive me. What is the difference between a sugar baby and mistress? Originally Posted by Ansley

I don't know exactly how it is now, but in the past a mistress was a kind of alternate wife. She was frequently, although not always younger and prettier. Although exclusivity was expected (for her), there were often strong emotional as well as financial ties, and the relationships could last for years. The classic example is Edward VII and Mrs. Keppel. A sugar baby, I understand, is more of business arrangement, and exclusivity is part of the negotiation.

I don't know exactly how it is now, but in the past a mistress was a kind of alternate wife. She was frequently, although not always younger and prettier. Although exclusivity was expected (for her), there were often strong emotional as well as financial ties, and the relationships could last for years. The classic example is Edward VII and Mrs. Keppel. A sugar baby, I understand, is more of business arrangement, and exclusivity is part of the negotiation. Originally Posted by davec.0121

This is my understanding as well. I've had both. In one case, the sugarbabe was actually married but needed extra money for her family. It was clear from the get go that she wasn't going to be exclusive to me at the expense of her husband, but she wasn't going to sleep with anyone else either. In the other, the mistress was indeed an alternative wife and relationship lasted for years. It only ended when she decided she wanted a second career and moved out of state.

If this has been covered in the past please forgive me. What is the difference between a sugar baby and mistress? Originally Posted by Ansley

I would say that once in the position...the two don't really look very different. It is probably a lot more about how one arrived at the position. A mistress probably arrived at the position much more like a RW relationship starts. In other words...two people meet, become some kind of friend, develop romantically, and through that romantic relationship some kind of financial arrangement got developed. Oh yeah, and one of the two is already attached. The mistress may have designs for something more...or may be accepting of her position.

The SB relationship was pretty financial from the get go.

But once they are both up and running...they probably don't appear to be much different.

Yes, the days of the HDH are over. At least in Dallas, anyway. The market is flooded with talented ladies at reasonable rates. Originally Posted by Dannie

I'm not sure when the "days" or "glory days" were. I guess maybe it was when money flowed more freely from a lot of sources. But one could argue the "glory days" of big cars...or big houses...or extravagant spending...etc., are also over.

But there are still folks buying big cars...and big houses...and spending extravagantly. And there are still guys who see gals at the high end of the "pay for play" structure. There just are not as many guys who have the cash to blow as there was a few years ago. They have traded in their big car for a chevrolet...and they have traded in the higher end P4P cash for lower end P4P. But that does not mean those folks who have had a change of fortunes do not yearn for the days when they can move up to the higher end again.

But once they are both up and running...they probably don't appear to be much different.



. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

IDK 'bout dat. I'd put my money on the SB beating the mistress to the bank ever time!

I'm not sure when the "days" or "glory days" were. I guess maybe it was when money flowed more freely from a lot of sources. But one could argue the "glory days" of big cars...or big houses...or extravagant spending...etc., are also over.

But there are still folks buying big cars...and big houses...and spending extravagantly. And there are still guys who see gals at the high end of the "pay for play" structure. There just are not as many guys who have the cash to blow as there was a few years ago. They have traded in their big car for a chevrolet...and they have traded in the higher end P4P cash for lower end P4P. But that does not mean those folks who have had a change of fortunes do not yearn for the days when they can move up to the higher end again. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

That's the spirit!

IDK 'bout dat. I'd put my money on the SB beating the mistress to the bank ever time! Originally Posted by WTF

If the mistress is really good...she'd have him set up direct deposit.

I would say that once in the position...the two don't really look very different. It is probably a lot more about how one arrived at the position. A mistress probably arrived at the position much more like a RW relationship starts. In other words...two people meet, become some kind of friend, develop romantically, and through that romantic relationship some kind of financial arrangement got developed. Oh yeah, and one of the two is already attached. The mistress may have designs for something more...or may be accepting of her position.

The SB relationship was pretty financial from the get go.

But once they are both up and running...they probably don't appear to be much different.
. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

this is the closest to my definition..."the woman a married man is having an afffair of a sexual nature with and one or both parties desire the affair to remain private"

I understand the mistress to have nothing explicit to do with money. He may or may not provide her with things - usually gifts or bills taken care of as opposed to a stack of Franklins. In fact the financially secure mistress may require nothing from him.

This is the third one I have been in, and even though it is less income than what I could make as a full time provider, it is far more rewarding to me than seeing multiple gentlemen on a day-in, day-out basis. When I am providing full time, I feel like I am spreading myself too thin. It's difficult for me to be 'on' all the time. I feel like I can be myself when exclusive to one hobbyist, instead of being a chameleon catering to widely varied hobbyist preferences every day....it's emotionally draining. The sex is better in my hobby relationship because we have had time to get to know each others likes and dislikes, and we have formed a close friendship...and isn't sex always better when you have some sort of 'closeness' or familiarity with the other person? I am happiest in these type of arrangements, it works for me Originally Posted by Dannie

Dannie, I commend you, Lina, and Lynette for adapting to the new reality. Dannie, I also suspect that even though your income is down, my guess is that you have found as I did, the stress induced spending is down as well.

Lauren's post on this subject reminded me of one of the most famous endings in literary history, "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter — tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther... And one fine morning ——So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

And a defense of the good ol' days is always going to, in terms of popularity, trump the brave new world.

However, the numbers are what they are. There are six million fewer men in their 40s. And there are three million more women in their 20s than a decade ago, and these women IMO are less likely to have the moral objection to taking money for pleasure that older women had. Furthermore, this nation has seen $10 trillion of wealth go poof in the last three years. So the trends (more women, less demand, and less wealth) are all squarely against the old HDH model.

There was a lot in Lauren's post that I wanted to respond to, but I will just highlight a few points.

Bragging about a woman I pay for is like bragging about catching a big trout in a stocked pond. Neither is worth doing. The comments about my experience with SBs were just to show my personal sample with regards to the quality and quantity of women available today versus ten years ago. It had nothing to do with bragging.

I have not written a review in years.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I certainly am paying for beauty, personality, and sexual thrill. As for character and companionship, I don't know how I am paying for that as I am seeing not the real woman as much as her provider persona.

There was one exception, a provider I was close to, and I think it is fair to say that we became friends. However, even with her, it would be at least a half hour before the provider wall would melt, and she would respond to me more like a friend than a customer.. but I still was a customer.

The irony is that I dumped my Halle Berry SB lookalike over character issues. She had personality, beauty, and BCD skills. If she were only a provider and not a SB, I would probably still be seeing her.

I think that the line that struck me the most was this one though.

"The gentlemen who book higher rates can afford it. Whether it's $200 or $2,000 makes absolutely no difference to them."

Almost every wealthy man I know has had to be a good judge of value. IMO when a man says, it does not matter to him how much something or someone costs, he is being polite.

As I said, I have the opportunity to dine with smart and beautiful women and get paid for doing so, and I suspect that I am far from the only man able to do so.

One time I was dining with a woman and the waiter for some reason took 30 minutes to get the bill. That the woman expected to be paid for this time was pretty annoying. In fact, I think it was the last dinner date that I had.

I know some men like having the most exclusive women by their side at public events and are willing to pay for it. I am not one of them.

The rationale for paying a woman a few hundred dollars an hour to attend an event was based on the fact that the woman could make the same money BCD, and she opted for the event instead. One flaw is that many men like myself could make that money working too.

The other in my case was knowing that the same women would attend an event with a friend or family member and not get paid for her time. I don't know how to pay for such an event and not feel pathetic about doing so.

I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I would take a provider to dinner was the hope that we would get more comfortable with each other, and the event BCD had a chance to be a richer one.

I was glad to see that some women here have accepted that reality and embraced the concept of the clock free night. There should be different rates for time spent BCD and time spent enjoying fine food and drink.

Using the SB model, men now are able to get clock free nights already. I am glad to see some HDHs acknowledge this and offer up a rational alternative.