The glory days of the HDH are over.

Not aimed at anyone in specific but if you really were an elite model, I'd see you walking the runway not on your knees or on your back.... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

And I don't take offense to your post, but I would hope most men see companions as doing a little bit more than being on their "knees or...back". At least there is more to my engagements than any physical act, so I hope my friends appreciate that. To each their own. Xoxo.

The glory days of the HDH never existed, and thus it cannot be over.

HDH ladies are a small group who have gotten lucky. They have existed as long as prostitution has. They are a niche group that is now visible because these women get websites.

Either they have great careers, are born to money or have stability through committed patrons. They don't need new dates, but can afford to maintain their website, photos, and advertising out of pocket. So if a lady with high rates gets just a couple of dates a year - it's worth it. It pays back the investment and she walks away with profit. If she makes one new regular visitor - then it becomes worth the invested time.

Many put HDH websites up, few last. When a rough economy hits, the successful ones can persevere and wait it out.

There will always be women who can charge exaggerated sums or have long minimum hours (or both) because there will always be men who can afford it and enjoy it. As long as the lady can maintain advertising, a web presence and can support herself and take only a few dates a year, then she can maintain HDH minimum standards.

Reviews are a pathetic way to really get a pulse on the industry. They are a loud group, but they are small. There are many experiences between men and women that never make TER, there are many more ladies and gentlemen involved then there are memberships on that website. Frankly the people who get heavily into the review culture are more interested in the sense of power and acknowledgment it gives them. I would argue that the demographic who is likely to post naturally finds women in their 20s the most desirable. I have always found the ladies of leisure in their 30s and early 40s are by far the most economically successful. The people to post reviews are naturally the ones to find 20 year olds hot - if your 50 and you just bedded a beautiful young thing you might want to find a forum to brag about it. However there are many men who do not review, and many of them are uncomfortable with a woman with too large an age difference.

There are women as attractive and talented in bed as I am who charge much less. Rates are not a reflection of beauty, personality or sexual thrill. I maintain them because I can afford to and because I adore long term engagements and the gentlemen who can afford my minimum are in a position to follow their desires. It's target marketing (smile to WTF).

The gentlemen who book higher rates can afford it. Whether it's $200 or $2,000 makes absolutely no difference to them. They are willing to pay because they want to see that specific person. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

That is a wonderful description, m'lady.

Just to clarify, I didn't say anything about someone being an "elite model", I said there are some women who have amazingly beautiful facial features behind the blur or crop, and their beauty cannot be denied. That was my point. And also you can have beautiful facial features, but if you are not tall enough or you don't have the right body type, you cannot walk the runway. It's not all black and white...I hope that makes sense now. Xoxo. Originally Posted by GiamarieLynn

No worries & my comment was kinda tongue in cheek, more aimed at all of the advertisements with laides billing themselves as "elite models" or "I've appeared in many magazines as a print model" etc.

My thought was more along the lines of most guys thinking, "So if you really are all that, why are you offering yourself for $250/hour?"

again the "you" being a generic, not specific term

No worries & my comment was kinda tongue in cheek, more aimed at all of the advertisements with laides billing themselves as "elite models" or "I've appeared in many magazines as a print model" etc.

My thought was more along the lines of most guys thinking, "So if you really are all that, why are you offering yourself for $250/hour?"

again the "you" being a generic, not specific term Originally Posted by atlcomedy

lol...I completely get it. Also, I wonder about all of the ladies who use VIP in their ads. I truly admire ladies who demonstrate exquisite qualities rather than toss around terms, because frankly the terms are overused.

Anyway, you make a good point.

Xoxo.

I wonder about all of the ladies who use VIP in their ads.

Xoxo. Originally Posted by GiamarieLynn

VIP = Very Impersonal Provider [could have used another epithet, but JB is watchiing]

No, c'mon CT; tell me, tell me.

Also, I wonder about all of the ladies who use VIP in their ads. Originally Posted by GiamarieLynn

Many times we don't use VIP on purpose. I know my ad from VIP Eros has been stolen and used on other sites. When they steal our ad the VIP title goes with it.

Many times we don't use VIP on purpose. I know my ad from VIP Eros has been stolen and used on other sites. When they steal our ad the VIP title goes with it. Originally Posted by Ansley

Please understand I wasn't referring to you ladies. I mean ladies who don't have those qualities overusing the term VIP and devaluing it to a point where it doesn't matter. If they are truly VIP and have those qualities it would show without them saying it. I think there are several lovely ladies that use VIP and should, because they are just that, and they are able to demonstrate those qualities without the title. If you took away the title...they would still be VIP, whereas there are other ladies who misuse the title. In terms of the Eros ad, it makes sense to post there if you have those qualities. If you don’t, it’s just like misusing the term and we can see the lady isn’t any VIP. And as I mentioned before, "I truly admire ladies who demonstrate exquisite qualities rather than toss around terms." These ladies can back it up, while there are others who simply toss around terms with no foundation. So I guess I don't know how else to be clear. Anyway, take care everyone. It was nice chatting with you all.

Warm regards.

Please understand I wasn't referring to you ladies. I mean ladies who don't have those qualities overusing the term VIP and devaluing it to a point where it doesn't matter. If they are truly VIP and have those qualities it would show without them saying it. I think there are several lovely ladies that use VIP and should, because they are just that, and they are able to demonstrate those qualities without the title. If you took away the title...they would still be VIP, whereas there are other ladies who misuse the title. In terms of the Eros ad, it makes sense to post there if you have those qualities. If you don’t, it’s just like misusing the term and we can see the lady isn’t any VIP. And as I mentioned before, "I truly admire ladies who demonstrate exquisite qualities rather than toss around terms." These ladies can back it up, while there are others who simply toss around terms with no foundation. So I guess I don't know how else to be clear. Anyway, take care everyone. It was nice chatting with you all.

Warm regards. Originally Posted by GiamarieLynn

Well, really, it's advertising. Do you think anyone would say, "I'd like to use VIP but honestly, I realize I'm not really worth it"? Someone who feels that way about herself shouldn't be in the business. It's just an advertising category, no guarantee or indication of anything (except that she's doing well enough to pay the extra cash for a more expensive ad), and I think most clients are aware of this.

Well, really, it's advertising. Do you think anyone would say, "I'd like to use VIP but honestly, I realize I'm not really worth it"? Someone who feels that way about herself shouldn't be in the business. Originally Posted by Natalie

Word!

...or choice between beauty in various forms. The trouble is that those possessing the ticket price sufficient to exercise that choice are unlikely to get jobs as Clark Gable lookalikes. The transaction distorts the judgement. Originally Posted by Clerkenwell

Actually, more successful men (and women) tend to be better looking.

Studies on compensation indicate that for men with equal objective merit, the taller one is paid more. Similar studies on women indicate that for two women of equal objective merit, the prettier one is paid more and perceived to be more intelligent and capable, even though she is the same.

But here is where the ticket price distorts judgment. I'm going to look at this from an evolutionary psychology perspective.

Let me give one example, not aimed at anyone particularly. If anything I'm indicting myself a bit here as I purchase time with some HDHs.

The P-test is a test administered by the FBI to ascertain one's level of psychopathy. As a point of reference, the scale goes from 0 to 40. The average person on the street scores 3. The BTK killer scored 30.

And those who have the greatest levels of success in the upper reaches of corporations? On average, they score 22.

(Please see "Is your Boss a Psychopath?" and the folks referenced therein.)

When the fellows who were convicted of deliberately lying about the potential for addiction of Oxycontin were fined; their fines amounted to only 1/10th of the money they made.

According to a great deal of research, not just in the U.S. but in Europe as well, the more successfully you negotiate the corporate ladder, the higher you score on the p-scale on average.

Not in all cases, of course. But if I am looking for a guy with an IQ higher than 115 and with psychopathic tendencies, I am more likely to find him as the CEO, COO, CIO, CFO, etc. etc. than as the bagger at the grocery store by a huge margin.

(There is also a tie-in between psychopathy and odds of being in jail. But if you look at the difference in IQ between the standard inhabitant of jail and the standard inhabitant of the boardroom; it is clear that the greater ability to foresee adverse consequences serves the denizen of the boardroom in good stead.)

Given the differential in compensation between a COO and the supervisor of the call center; it is the COO who is far more likely to book an HDH.

HDH rates tend to skew the sorts of men who are able to afford those rates toward the COO -- who is likely to be substantively more psychopathic than the call center supervisor.

This may not be an issue for the ladies involved; but I am going to theorize that this is a result of a maladaptive application of the underlying evolutionary motivations of female hypergamy.

Female hypergamy is a woman's tendency to want the very best possible man. If she is psychologically healthy, every woman believes she deserves the best in terms of men. Obviously, explicit processing and rational evaluation will lead women to choose lesser men than the very best when they realize the best is not practically accessible. Nevertheless, cases of cuckoldry (10% of children born to married couples are not the biological offspring of hubby) typically are the result of mating with males of higher status than the husband.

Human beings have evolutionarily diverged from our primate cousins for 2.5 million years. For the overwhelming preponderance of our evolutionary history, the best man -- the man with the greatest resources for supporting offspring -- corresponded to the strongest, healthiest and smartest man. In fact, Cro Magnon -- with 200 cc greater brain capacity than modern man -- is believed by scholars not in denial to have had greater raw intellectual horsepower than all but the brightest of modern men. In our hunter-gatherer past, traits such as strength, health and intelligence corresponded to offspring having the greatest chance of survival.

So throughout most of our evolutionary history, the female hypergamous impulse selected for men who were strong, smart and healthy as the most desirable mates. Such men controlled the most resources.

Think, then, of control of resources as a proxy trait. That is, through most of our evolutionary history control of resources was a very easy way of ascertaining the existence of other traits such as health, strength and intelligence. This is similar to the way in which men find certain waist/hip ratios attractive as a proxy for health and capacity to successfully give birth to live young; the way in which men find symmetry attractive as a proxy for good genes and youth attractive as a proxy for fertility.

Starting with the advent of agriculture, however -- in all cultures around the world -- our brains started shrinking. In fact, the brain and strength of homo sapiens has been consistently shrinking now for thousands of years. Evolutionary anthropologists posit this to be the result of communities based upon agriculture having surpluses to allow for specialization and social safety nets and thus for people to be able to survive and breed who would not have been able to do so in pre-agricultural days.

Likewise, the advent of agriculturally based cultures started to create a break between the correspondence between health/strength/intelligence and control of resources. In the modern era, this break is almost complete with the average engineer having an IQ of 130 and an income under 100k and the average CEO having an IQ of 115 and considerably greater income.

Thus, in the modern era, while there is not a complete break between control of resources and the traits of strength, health and intelligence for which it originally proxies; there is an increasing correspondence between control of resources and psychopathic traits.

Thus, when women use control of resources as a primary selection factor for mates in the modern era; they are often working at cross purposes with the original evolutionary purpose of the proxy. In other words, they are in love with the cover rather than the actual book.

And the linkage of this proxy has become so strong, due IMO to cultural factors, that some studies indicate that women are more orgasmic with men they believe to be more wealthy. No joke -- look it up. Notice I said "believe to be more wealthy." It is the perception rather than the reality that increases the orgasmic response.

IMHO, this is seriously maladaptive and some authorities have noted that "evolutionarily speaking, it doesn't end well."

There are other respects in which this is seriously maladaptive.

For one thing, up until retirement anyway, a man's control of resources tends to increase with age. When women prioritize control of resources over other factors in mate choice, they tend to end up with relatively older fathers for their offspring.

Notwithstanding all of the debates over vaccinations; the rise in the occurrence in autism in our culture is almost completely attributable to the fact that the older the father, the higher the risk of fathering children with autism. Couples are having children (when they have them at all) at older ages overall than in the past; and women in love with the proxy of resource control rather than the underlying traits it represented in our evolutionary history tend to marry older men.

So I agree and disagree. I disagree that the men who can afford an HDH are necessarily bad looking. On the contrary, they are likely better looking than average for men of their age. However, I agree that there is a little "gotcha" in the box, to the extent that men with higher levels of psychopathic traits will be disproportionately represented in the selection pool.

HDHs who want to exclude psychopathically inclined men have their work cut out for them; especially as such men are quite skilled at manipulation and appearing as being other than they are -- which is one reason for their success.

But now that I've looked at this from one angle; a couple of notes from the other.

Men's preferences for proxy traits in women are becoming just as useless and maladaptive; and giving rise to increasing numbers of Down's Syndrome babies. By prioritizing appearance over character in women; although often pretty women are very fine women; men often disproportionately reward women with traits they'd rather not see in their offspring.

Disclaimer: If you read carefully, you will note that I said nothing specific about anyone particularly. What I stated were ODDS. It is entirely possible that any given HDH only books modern equivalents of Gandhi and Jesus (unless she books me, whereby she books a former mercenary); and similarly possible that guys who choose women only on the basis of looks wind up with women of entirely wholesome character. I am speaking of odds based upon research. Just odds. Nothing more. This should all be taken as speculative thought rather than pertaining to anyone personally.

Well, really, it's advertising. Do you think anyone would say, "I'd like to use VIP but honestly, I realize I'm not really worth it"? Someone who feels that way about herself shouldn't be in the business. It's just an advertising category, no guarantee or indication of anything (except that she's doing well enough to pay the extra cash for a more expensive ad), and I think most clients are aware of this. Originally Posted by Natalie

As someone with a marketing background, no, I don't think anyone would say "I'd like to use VIP but honestly, I realize I'm not really worth it". I guess I was just trying to acknowledge the ladies who use the terms and can actually demonstrate “elite” qualities. I am quite certain most men can decipher who is and who isn't VIP when it's used throughout a website (I actually wasn't referring to Eros). You see ladies charging half hour rates (not judging anyone) calling themselves VIP on their sites. So I guess I was simply stating the obvious here, and perhaps I didn’t need to, if it is common knowledge, but I did. Anyway, if for some reason my post was misinterpreted, I do apologize. I just think the terms are overused, period and some people just should not be using them.

Warm regards.

Would one of you smart college educated HDH women explain all of that to me?
I was referring to Laurentius' post.

Actually, more successful men (and women) tend to be better looking.

Studies on compensation indicate that for men with equal objective merit, the taller one is paid more. Similar studies on women indicate that for two women of equal objective merit, the prettier one is paid more and perceived to be more intelligent and capable, even though she is the same. ........

Disclaimer: If you read carefully, you will note that I said nothing specific about anyone particularly. What I stated were ODDS. It is entirely possible that any given HDH only books modern equivalents of Gandhi and Jesus (unless she books me, whereby she books a former mercenary); and similarly possible that guys who choose women only on the basis of looks wind up with women of entirely wholesome character. I am speaking of odds based upon research. Just odds. Nothing more. This should all be taken as speculative thought rather than pertaining to anyone personally. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Good read. Loved the disclaimer!

Excellent post Lauren. You managed to put in to words what I have been attempting to say all along .I think that many people misunderstand, and when they see a woman with higher rates they automatically think that she is working a typical full time schedule, and must be rolling in money.This is not the case for many of us.When all is said and done I probably average about 1 and one quarter clients a week .I have found this to be my perfect amount, because when I started as an escort I charged a pretty average rate, and usually saw several clients a week. After a couple of months I noticed how stressed out I was getting. I took some time off, and when I returned that is when I started to change my approach to this business.

Seeing a few men that I feel a strong bond with has been a much better option for me than when I was attempting to work full time.One way is not better than the other It really does just come down to what you prefer. I have no doubt that many of the women who have more competitive rates in my area do much better than me money wise, and that is great if you can handle it. For me there is just no way I can see a higher volume of new clients, and not end up in a straight jacket. I am very content with the income that I do receive from doing this. I know how generous my clients have been with me, and I do not take that for granted.

Whatever may happen with the economy reality is if you can keep your lifestyle simple your clients happy, and your savings account full you will always have more freedom, and options in this life no matter what you may choose to do for a living.

The glory days of the HDH never existed, and thus it cannot be over.

HDH ladies are a small group who have gotten lucky. They have existed as long as prostitution has. They are a niche group that is now visible because these women get websites.

Either they have great careers, are born to money or have stability through committed patrons. They don't need new dates, but can afford to maintain their website, photos, and advertising out of pocket. So if a lady with high rates gets just a couple of dates a year - it's worth it. It pays back the investment and she walks away with profit. If she makes one new regular visitor - then it becomes worth the invested time.

Many put HDH websites up, few last. When a rough economy hits, the successful ones can persevere and wait it out.

There will always be women who can charge exaggerated sums or have long minimum hours (or both) because there will always be men who can afford it and enjoy it. As long as the lady can maintain advertising, a web presence and can support herself and take only a few dates a year, then she can maintain HDH minimum standards.

Reviews are a pathetic way to really get a pulse on the industry. They are a loud group, but they are small. There are many experiences between men and women that never make TER, there are many more ladies and gentlemen involved then there are memberships on that website. Frankly the people who get heavily into the review culture are more interested in the sense of power and acknowledgment it gives them. I would argue that the demographic who is likely to post naturally finds women in their 20s the most desirable. I have always found the ladies of leisure in their 30s and early 40s are by far the most economically successful. The people to post reviews are naturally the ones to find 20 year olds hot - if your 50 and you just bedded a beautiful young thing you might want to find a forum to brag about it. However there are many men who do not review, and many of them are uncomfortable with a woman with too large an age difference.

There are women as attractive and talented in bed as I am who charge much less. Rates are not a reflection of beauty, personality or sexual thrill. I maintain them because I can afford to and because I adore long term engagements and the gentlemen who can afford my minimum are in a position to follow their desires. It's target marketing (smile to WTF).

The gentlemen who book higher rates can afford it. Whether it's $200 or $2,000 makes absolutely no difference to them. They are willing to pay because they want to see that specific person. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill