The glory days of the HDH are over.

The original poster neglects a lot of factors in his reasoning; including both concentrations of wealth (How many HDHs could Bill Gates support?) and the fact that some guys don't hobby a lot so that the per-appointment cost is not so crucial as it would be if they hobbied a lot. Originally Posted by Laurentius

No, I didn't. The wealth lost due to the falling stock and real estate market is $10 trillion. That is around 25% of the total wealth of this great nation.

As for Bill Gates, most of his wealth is tied up in Microsoft stock. He could afford a lot more HDHs when MSFT stock was near $60 in 2000 (pre-split) then he can today with the stock at $25. That was one of my points.

Maybe some can help me out with one concept. Is there a HDH tax that wealthy people have to pay? Because this is the second time someone has said that wealthy people can pay more. The real issue though is not that they can but whether they do.

In every review of any woman that I have read, the price is listed. Discussion of price may be the single most discussed issue in the male locker rooms. When I have talked about the hobby to other wealthy men, their question is always, "how much does it cost?" The notion that men don't care whether they pay $200 or $2000 is not one I have seen discussed among men.

Furthermore, some of my SBs have entertained with stories of the rich and powerful as have providers and dancers. One dancer at the Lodge told me that a famous, wealthy man who owns a local sports team was after her and asked if she wanted to work for him. It was implied that part of the work was sex. The offering price was $30,000 or $15 an hour. She turned him down.

A famous LA Laker has a Dallas area mistress. Apparently, he was such a cheap bastard that the the woman had to threaten to do a tell all before he coughed up even a little bit of cash.

And he is not alone. Apparently, Tiger Woods was cheap as well. See the link: http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news...-hospital.html

Maybe there are men who can afford the HDH, but that is not the issue. The issue is if they do.

As for Bill Gates, most of his wealth is tied up in Microsoft stock. He could afford a lot more HDHs when MSFT stock was near $60 in 2000 (pre-split) then he can today with the stock at $25. That was one of my points. Originally Posted by woodyboyd

I would venture to say that gates wealth is so vast that the short-term price of MSFT stock has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to indulge in HDH's

but one that has surged in popularity, the sugar baby.
Originally Posted by woodyboyd

Can you support this statement. Just because SB is new to you doesn't mean there is a "surge"

& don't cite the emergence of a bunch of websites...that is just a technology statement

that would be like saying there is a surge in escorts because of the emergence of eccie, eros, BP, etc.

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 pjorourke

That is consistent with my experience. HDH is a lot cleaner. SB is more adventuresome, can be more true GFE, requires more investment in finding her (but for some including myself there is a thill to the hunt) but watchout for the head cases and set boundaries on the frontend...

BTW there is a terrific thread on SB's in general included a virtual "how to" guide in the "Legacy of ASPD" forum started by Shyster John who seems to specialize in this.

In every review of any woman that I have read, the price is listed. Discussion of price may be the single most discussed issue in the male locker rooms. When I have talked about the hobby to other wealthy men, their question is always, "how much does it cost?" The notion that men don't care whether they pay $200 or $2000 is not one I have seen discussed among men.
Originally Posted by woodyboyd

I tried to make this point some 150 [edited to say 225 or so...]or so posts back in this thread, but I'll reiterate it. The guys that post on message boards, like ourselves, while part of the HDH clientele, do not drive the market.

The fact that a bunch of guys in a local guys only forum bitch about price isn't representative of the broader HDH market

I tried to make this point some 150 [edited to say 225 or so...]or so posts back in this thread, but I'll reiterate it. The guys that post on message boards, like ourselves, while part of the HDH clientele, do not drive the market. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

And when did I state that they did? I cited financial and demographic data.

The fact that a bunch of guys in a local guys only forum bitch about price isn't representative of the broader HDH market Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I stated discuss not bitch.

And since you seem so certain of what drives the market, please share it with the rest of it.

But before you do, please do not repeat what I posted about the amount of wealth lost, the supply of younger women, and the decreased demand from aging men.

And when did I state that they did? I cited financial and demographic data.



I stated discuss not bitch.

And since you seem so certain of what drives the market, please share it with the rest of it.

But before you do, please do not repeat what I posted about the amount of wealth lost, the supply of younger women, and the decreased demand from aging men. Originally Posted by woodyboyd

Yeah I said Bitch

Lighten up Woody...

I don't have all the answers but I do know when someone is going down the path of chasing false logic. Your discussion of what goes on relative to discussion boards about pricing as it relates to the HDH market is when at least I inferred you think the HDH market is driven by boards like this

No, I didn't. The wealth lost due to the falling stock and real estate market is $10 trillion. That is around 25% of the total wealth of this great nation. ... Because this is the second time someone has said that wealthy people can pay more. The real issue though is not that they can but whether they do. ... In every review of any woman that I have read, the price is listed. ... When I have talked about the hobby to other wealthy men, their question is always, "how much does it cost?" The notion that men don't care whether they pay $200 or $2000 is not one I have seen discussed among men. ... Maybe there are men who can afford the HDH, but that is not the issue. The issue is if they do. Originally Posted by woodyboyd

On your first point ...

What was lost was not "wealth" but rather "potential wealth." And to some degree that loss may well have been temporary.

For example, in 2006 I owned X shares of Y stock. Now, in 2010, I STILL own X shares of Y stock. Nobody came along and took that stock away from me -- it is still sitting in my brokerage account. I STILL own a certain portion of that company.

Now, when I look at that stock, it's per-share value changes and thus the value of my holding in that stock changes. But that value is merely a placeholder until I ACTUALLY SELL THE STOCK.

If I bought that stock for $10 in 2006, it was valued at $16 in 2008 and it is currently worth $11; I have NOT experienced a $5 "loss." I haven't lost a danged thing until I sell the stock. And even then, I have gained $1. That makes it a poor investment for the 2006 to 2010 time frame (because of inflation), I'll grant you -- but the $5 loss is an illusion.

This country did NOT lose WEALTH. The assets still exist. What it lost was current stock portfolio valuation; and that valuation is a number that changes daily in response to everything from weather events to grumblings from the federal reserve. In fact, a number of analysts do quite well by predicting stock movement based upon the psychology of human herd mentality.

What I am saying is that VERY VERY often, the valuation of a stock has ZILCH to do with the underlying value of the entity from which it is derived; and is instead driven by what Greenspan once termed "irrational exuberance." People drive the value of a stock up out of sheer stupidity sometimes, just by jumping on a bandwagon.

Basically, it's a gambling game. What was lost was NOT "wealth" but rather "money that might have been made." But even that is not accurate, as the mere act of selling or buying a stock in any significant quantity will alter its price. If you were to liquidate a million shares of stock X, others would notice that, think maybe something was wrong and maybe you had inside info, and sell their own shares. And the value of that stock would plummet. Likely, it would plummet to well below it's intrinsic worth; others would see a buying opportunity and ... well, you know.

Equating a loss of valuation in a stock portfolio to actual loss of wealth is highly inaccurate.

On your second point ...

I don't consider myself to be "rich." Maybe the Democratic Party does; but I certainly don't. So I don't hang around in locker rooms full of rich guys discussing the going price of providers.

But what I CAN tell you is this: High Dollar Hotties EXIST. That is real, it is a fact. It is not idle speculation, and it isn't based upon a locker room conversation. It is a cold hard fact of reality.

And for HDHs to exist, SOMEBODY must be paying them.

For you to argue that rich guys (however rich is defined) *won't* book them flies in the face of reality; because guys falling below this country's median income of $46k sure as hell aren't booking them.

So ... why don't you tell me ... since HDHs indisputably exist ... WHO is booking them?

BTW, this is a rhetorical question as I already know the answer and so do you. There are rich guys who do NOT hang out in your locker room, do NOT participate on message boards and do NOT write reviews who will book these ladies overnight, for a full weekend, for a week of vacation or even pay them a regular retainer.

And they don't tell you that they are doing it.

There are rich guys who do NOT hang out in your locker room, do NOT participate on message boards and do NOT write reviews who will book these ladies overnight, for a full weekend, for a week of vacation or even pay them a regular retainer.

And they don't tell you that they are doing it. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Ding, ding, ding we have a winning answer here. So many of my dates have never heard of these message boards. If they have heard of them, they are strictly lurkers.




Damn it they have changed the smilies again.

On your first point ...

What was lost was not "wealth" but rather "potential wealth." And to some degree that loss may well have been temporary. Originally Posted by Laurentius

You hear that folks....all those home loans that were made on folks rising housing prices that you can not sell for half of what you borrowed on it, well its not a loss....it is a "potential loss''!

And here all along I thought there was a housing bubble, turns out it was just a potential bubble

And similarly, Why would anyone pay thousands to a HDH for a dinner date when they can see a sugar baby and pay her thousands for multiple dinner dates?
Originally Posted by woodyboyd

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)

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

And here all along I thought there was a housing bubble, turns out it was just a potential bubble Originally Posted by WTF

No, for the ones trying to sell, the bubble is real. But for those of us who aren't trying to sell and have no desire to sell, it's potential.

No, for the ones trying to sell, the bubble is real. But for those of us who aren't trying to sell and have no desire to sell, it's potential. Originally Posted by John Bull

Do not forget all those AIG's types we bailed out. That is coming out of mine and your pocket. Or is that a potential pocket!

Do not forget all those AIG's types we bailed out. Originally Posted by WTF

Who exactly were the "AIG types" we bailed out?

Do not forget all those AIG's types we bailed out. That is coming out of mine and your pocket. Or is that a potential pocket! Originally Posted by WTF

I presume you mean the money the govt printed so that Goldman Sachs would have fewer competitors.

Sometimes the price of items is not stated up front. Originally Posted by pjorourke

And that was an under Statement of Truth!

BTW....thou I respect and have enjoyed "woodyboyd" 's post here, I'm the little smartass named "Woody of TX", just don't want to get me mixed up with someone that has it all figured out, after doing the trash f**K, the med range, the HDH and SugarDaddy-SugarBaby ordeal, I still don't have enough information to agree or disagree to the original post, thou many parts seem clueless in some aspects.