to creepy.

then you're shit outta luck, pal.

The only difference between being eccentric and just plain fucking weird, is how much money you have.

providers, two questions:  1.  do you have creep screening techniques?  2.  is there a cash threshold that would allow you to tolerate smelliness or creepiness?

said another way, do rich guys, free with their money, somehow smell better/seem more suave?

I burst into tears of sensitive creepiness...

honestly just cuz most men woud fuck just about anyone who would do them for free and many women won't doesn't make them gold diggers just selective.
Being choosy is not really a bad thing. I think the fat that we choose to be selective a great deal of men resent. If the tables were turned, you would too.
Now if your choice was a women who was confident well taken care of and wealthy was yor choice over an unemployed to average guy, what would you choose.
Water seeks its own level. We tend to be atrracted by those who have ambitions more than those just floundering throug life.
Many men have a vagina as the only qualification on their list of who they will play with.
Now thats not all men as its not all women who will chase the money train.

Obviously, studies of this sort report on averages; and there are women who are exceptions to these.

But from what I have ascertained, you can take a guy with an income of $10k and the girl won't give him the time of day. Give him $10M? And even though all of his attributes are the same as they were when he only made $10k; he'll be beating women off with a stick and scraping them off the ceiling from their orgasms.

Of course, as I said, this is not ALL women.

But it is enough that it would seem to me that if a guy is rich enough, he should be able to find accommodation. He becomes "eccentric" rather than "creepy."

Just because someone claims to be rich, doesn't make it so.

What a concept, lying about being rich to impress a woman, who would do such a thing? lmao

creep factor included being unconsensually abused, then even $10,000,000,000 wouldn't be enough.

How can they tell? OTOH being a creep is hard to hide. If a creep manages to get by the creep screen what's next? Some people think that all hobbyists are creeps.

a sexual predator. Really successful predators are very hard to detect. Stay safe.

Herr Doctor:  Your post makes me very concerned for your well-being. It is so full of mis-spellings and sloppy language I fear you are not your usual wise self.  Are you back to using blow again?
Yours,
Karl

Keep in mind the context. The context is a guy asking if some provider out there would take care of a guy who was creepy IF he was rich. The answer, of course, is that while he can by no means count on any or all providers taking on the task, given sufficient financial inducement, he will be able to find at least one provider who will do so.

You seem to be reading moral condemnation into what I am saying when none exists.

Human sexuality is complex and has multiple components. Certainly, there are tendencies rooted in behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology; but these tendencies get filtered through cultural values, individual personality, experiences, parental treatment, media exposure and more before netting a given behavioral pattern.

Obviously, for 99.99% of human history, money as such did not even exist. Hence, the tendency to prefer men with lots of money is a culturally-adapted interpretation of an underlying evolutionary goal. Women might try to meet that underlying evolutionary goal through a wide range of preferences -- not merely that of wealth.

In general, in a psychologically healthy woman who has not been traumatized and has no self-esteem issues, what she wants, at core, is a genetically superior mate who will give her genetically superior offspring with the greatest possible chance of survival.

As there is no way of testing genetic fitness directly, a number of indirect phenotypical means are used instead. One measure is looking at wealth, another is looking at the body, another is looking at the mind, etc etc etc.

Please note that there is no *moral* content to any of this, as nature only knows one law: Do your genes survive? If your genes survive, then your behavioral pattern was adaptive. If your genes do not survive, then your behavioral pattern was not. That is, of course, an oversimplification as genetic similarity theory also comes into play as the underlying basis of altruistic tendencies that classic evolutionary models cannot explain.

So while I have personally chosen to avoid gold-diggers in civie life; that is merely an exercise of my own preferences and not at all a moral judgment. The only judgments that can be applied to such behavior are: does it pass on her genes? And -- even more importantly -- is the correspondence between wealth and genetic quality as close as the woman thinks it is thus netting superior offspring? (I would posit that the correspondence is not that strong due to correlation in our current culture between wealth and psychopathic tendencies, and  and that women who marry men with higher incomes also tend to have fewer children so that, in toto, gold digging is maladaptive and will ultimately remove such tendencies from the gene and meme pools. But that's a subject for another day.)

Men also seek preferentially superior mates though they use different means. Again, like women, they cannot see and interpret genes directly and thus rely on indirect measures such as symmetry.

Women who gold-dig can be likened to men who simply go for highly attractive and/or the most youthful women. This behavior in men is seen as superficial; and in many cases it may well be, especially as cultural norms for attractiveness have some degree of variability and we are currently in the midst of an obesity epidemic with 2/3rds of Americans at unhealthy weight levels. The underlying causes of this epidemic can obscure women who are otherwise superior mates.  Again, a subject for another day.

However, going for the prettiest woman, though at first seeming superficial, may be quite adaptive in the long run. For example, a study in "Intelligence" concluded that: "physical attractiveness is significantly positively associated with general intelligence, both with and without controls for social class, body size, and health."

In other words, contrary to stereotypes, attractive women are likely to be smarter than their peers. According to the study, a full 15 IQ points on average -- an entire standard deviation. That's serious.

Furthermore, traits associated with attractiveness cross-culturally such as symmetry and healthy appearance definitely correspond to sound underlying genetics as well as the ability to carry healthy offspring to term.

Obviously, within a hobby in which all the females are effectively sterile and hence all efforts are reproductively null and automatically maladaptive, none of these preferences have a positive genetic impact in terms of the standard of value employed by Nature. However, humans do not draw those distinctions; which is why a movie -- something utterly false -- can still change your emotional state.

A lot of good salespeople make it their mission to figure out how much money someone has.  Also, a lot of rich guys like to let it slip, because it instantly makes their dicks grow a few inches.  The creepiness comments are more interesting, though.

Meine Dear Prof. Galt:  Your studious erudition moves me deeply.  But your use of terms such as "maladaptive" will not be successful with Dr. Freud.  First of all, because he is apparantly not in full control of his senses (as in "loony" or "verblungit").  Also because, as you know, behavioral psychology is alien to him.  After all, he insists that "sometimes a cigar is only a cigar," as he puffs away on his phallus-like stogie.  Hah!  And as for your reference to "standard deviations" let me point out that this site already demonstrates all known standard deviations (not to mention deviates), but quite a few that are totally bizarre.  Still, it is so nice to meet a colleague and kindred soul here.
Fondly,
Karl

A well written e-mail or phone call.

Suggesting a dinner date to a nice restaurant instead of McD's.

Asking for a 2 or 3 hr date instead of 30 min.

The quality of hotel he's staying at.

None "prove" his income level, but they do indicate.  And is it not more about what he is willing to do rather than the size of his bank account?  There are some very tightwad rich folks.

I know a guy in DC who does not have a lot of money but spends an inordinately large amount of what he earns on the ladies, and they generally respond to how he spends and how he treats them.

I'll tell you how to build a watch

... that you don't know how to build a watch.

The most recent timepiece I built used a DS1337 RTC interfaced via I2C with an ATMEGA168.

Of course, I wouldn't go to that effort just to know the time. Being a poor dumb farmer, I also used photocell and temperature sensors (TMP36GT9Z) in conjunction for controlling heat and lighting in a chicken coop. Time was an important variable as a chicken's egg production is tied to circadian rhythms. It's really quite the masterpiece -- it keeps their water from freezing using the minimal possible electricity via Pulse-Width-Modulation controlled by temperature differential, heats their roosting area when temps are under 20 degrees, provides light only as needed and only during certain hours, etc.

If you need to know in detail how to build this, let me know and I'll give you schematics, source code and PCB files for a fee.

There's nothing pedantic about that.

Now, since you have self-identified as a vagina -- hey, you called yourself a vagina, not I -- why don't you go to the drugstore, pick up a nice Massengil douche, and clean yourself out?

Since you have identified yourself, likewise, as belonging to me -- and who am I to question? -- please also get some cream for that nasty yeast infection that has you spewing odoriferous ooze. You're starting to itch.

No one has enough cash to sway me from the things I believe. Money cannot buy my intuition on a client. All providers should trust themselves and not be clouded by cash.

not hard to detect. easy. for anyone in the business long enough and smart enough to find certain warning signs that are evident (or learn from their past mistakes.)

I would add:

--the quality of the clothes he wears to appointments.

--the kind of car he drives

--and even if they don't say "I'm rich" they do often talk about work, and what kind of work they do.  That is, of course, also an indication of income.

I know there are always exceptions to the indications, and not everyone is as they appear to be, but, most of the time I think I can figure out roughly how much someone makes or is worth.

... who is often deceptive. I have gone through entire appointments in the persona of a semi-employed drifting ranch hand from Texas, and the women never suspected otherwise. Hey -- the ladies say they are acting, so I see no problem with acting back. LOL

The reality is that I grew up dirt poor in the rural South, and though I have had some degree of success, I am disinclined to buy expensive clothes, expensive cars and the like. I have done that at times when it has been needed to impress potential clients and so forth (and as a side-effect attracted gold diggers like a man with a bleeding wound in shark infested waters); but overall tend to eschew such things and portray myself as a farmer.

I remember one lady I saw three times for a total of 9 hours before it started to dawn on her that I might not be just a poor dumb farmer. (Since I do own a farm, for me to portray myself as a farmer is not a lie; it is simply incomplete.)

I think that's kind of funny in and of itself. Providers, I think, are often very out of touch with how much money their rates actually represent.

The median take-home pay for a male in this country is $525/week after deductions from his paycheck. (Even though he earns $800) And at that rate, he is literally two missed paychecks away from bankruptcy -- as the continuing high foreclosure and bankruptcy rates in this country will attest. So he cannot afford to plop down half a week's pay, a whole week's pay or even more to see a provider.

Thus, the overwhelming preponderance of hobbyists that would see providers on this board by definition are at least in the upper half of income. So the very fact I was paying her should have given her the idea that maybe I wasn't strictly in a lower-50% occupation.

I'm still chuckling about it.