Need help finding a "ultra high-end" escort - for my boss!

[danneeoo]

Or you could just have a tall boss.

 

Ha - how can I import this emoji set to the iPhone by the way? I especially want these hilarious ones:

 

 

Mr. Draker, I suspect that if there is such a list, you would know about it. But as you know:

 

First rule of Ultra High End Escort Club is that: There is no Ultra High End Escort Club. I would also mention that when the End is Ultra High, it requires getting on tiptoes to fuck it and that can put quite a bit of strain on the calves, so have your boss start doing some weight training on them gastrocs, because as described, your boss is usually above it all.

[+ purplekow]

Danny O. i was referring to PM not posts to the thread, just to be clear.

[danneeoo]

Bodybuilders would be too big but thanks for the suggestion. Definitely rethinking the SA approach.

 

If fake, then kudos to OP, because this is hilarious! (And I'm not sure why QTR thinks only guys would think it's funny). If it's real, here 's a suggestion: try MuscleService forum. They often have bodybuilders looking for a very discreet arrangement like your boss described. This is assuming your boss is into muscle guys. I also second Seeking Arrangement, which has already been suggested. I've actually met some cool guys off there.

[danneeoo]

Yep I understood that.

 

Danny O. i was referring to PM not posts to the thread, just to be clear.

[marylander1940]

http://i.imgur.com/MrW5mUX.gif

 

I wonder if the alleged assistant can just place a couple of phone calls and set up an appointment for his alleged wealthy straight boss who wants an "ultra-high-end" escort whatever the fuck that means...

[danneeoo]

Ha - those quote marks around "friends" are certainly right. It's been a useful experience though, in many ways.

 

Thick skin is a requirement of the job.

 

 

Danneeoo, your popularity rate is through the roof ...

 

You've made so many "friends" with a single thread. I've rarely seen someone's postings as thoroughly dissected as yours.

 

You've got thick skin!

[+ WilliamM]

To those of you who think this is a scam: Danneeoo has put a lot of effort into this if it is. I don't know why someone would bother. If you think it likely, what does that say about you?

 

I would be concerned if I was the only person who thinks it may be a scam. But, some of the most respected posters here think so as well. Just to be clear, I came to the conclusion on my own.

[m.yi]

Ha - those quote marks around "friends" are certainly right. It's been a useful experience though, in many ways.

 

Thick skin is a requirement of the job.

 

 

So OP, have you produced any "ultra-high end escorts" for your diva of a boss? If not, I'd be concerned about when I'll be receiving the pink-slip.

 

Isn't production part of the job?

[+ azdr0710]

do any old-timers here remember the old, legendary multi-page thread by the guy who was having a pickle of a time finding underwear that would fit him just right?.....

 

or the thread that blew wide open plagiarism accusations toward a very well-known escort and his blog?

 

a few threads here at hooboy/Daddy's approach that level.....

[TUOT89]

Lol - hmmmm, how many times since that Christie's auction this month in London have you talked to the head of a major world museum? Because I've talked to two, and even they're a little baffled at how much money the ultra-ultra-wealthy are parking in single pieces of art right now. I didn't say my boss wasn't buying art. I used it as an example of how people use their money even more lavishly than my boss does. Context.

 

As a general rule, when telling a lie don't embellish and don't digress. The digressions and embellishments may expose the lie.

 

First of all, no real museum director is surprised by the prices, only you are. This has been going on for quite a while. Anyone who follows the art world closely or even just dabbles in the market may be frustrated by the whole thing, but not surprised.

 

Second of all, the two "heads of a major museum" who have been talking to you seem as misinformed as you are. Why would those "heads" be talking about the auctions in London this month, when the auctions this month were in NYC? Was that just an innocent error on your part? I doubt it.

 

Moreover, why would the "head of a major world museum" be talking to you? Does your boss also entrust you with selecting which "major world museums" are going to get the art he supposedly buys? You know the art he has been buying for years, but whose prices are still a surprise to you. Next time you want to lie about these things, say you talked to Larry G or David Z about these things. While neither would have shared your surprise over the prices, contact with them would have been more credible.

 

I recognize how much easier it was to say "head of a major world museum" than to say Larry G or David Z because mentioning the latter would have required some inside knowledge as to their stature in the art world and how much the art they sell costs. Understandably, you did not want to risk associating your fictional boss with gallerists who did not befit his fictional status. However, the problem with saying "head of a major world museum" is that the term itself introduces doubt. The term "museum director" would have been sufficient. It is the job title. That's how people like your fictional boss would know such persons and recognize them. So, why the overemphasis, unless you were talking about something you did not really know firsthand? Were you just trying to impress us? Perhaps, but even that motive raises other doubts. Whatever the case, there is enough doubt now to make your whole account questionable. After all, if you would lie about talking to the "head of a major world museum," well... (My work here is done.)

[instudiocity]

No offense to you but this boss of yours seems like a total putz!

There a succinct response to the situation -- "I'm so ultra-high end, that I cannot stoop to procuring my own sexual partners (paid or not), so I'll just appoint my straight assistant to find me the nearly impossible."

 

Another question arises, "Could it be this putz just wants his straight assistant, Bent Dover?"

[bigvalboy]

As a general rule, when telling a lie don't embellish and don't digress. The digressions and embellishments may expose the lie.

 

First of all, no real museum director is surprised by the prices, only you are. This has been going on for quite a while. Anyone who follows the art world closely or even just dabbles in the market may be frustrated by the whole thing, but not surprised.

 

Second of all, the two "heads of a major museum" who have been talking to you seem as misinformed as you are. Why would those "heads" be talking about the auctions in London this month, when the auctions this month were in NYC? Was that just an innocent error on your part? I doubt it.

 

Moreover, why would the "head of a major world museum" be talking to you? Does your boss also entrust you with selecting which "major world museums" are going to get the art he supposedly buys? You know the art he has been buying for years, but whose prices are still a surprise to you. Next time you want to lie about these things, say you talked to Larry G or David Z about these things. While neither would have shared your surprise over the prices, contact with them would have been more credible.

 

I recognize how much easier it was to say "head of a major world museum" than to say Larry G or David Z because mentioning the latter would have required some inside knowledge as to their stature in the art world and how much the art they sell costs. Understandably, you did not want to risk associating your fictional boss with gallerists who did not befit his fictional status. However, the problem with saying "head of a major world museum" is that the term itself introduces doubt. The term "museum director" would have been sufficient. It is the job title. That's how people like your fictional boss would know such persons and recognize them. So, why the overemphasis, unless you were talking about something you did not really know firsthand? Were you just trying to impress us? Perhaps, but even that motive raises other doubts. Whatever the case, there is enough doubt now to make your whole account questionable. After all, if you would lie about talking to the "head of a major world museum," well... (My work here is done.)

 

Hmmm....the more you know. (page 10?)

[Guest SilverDollar]

I also sent him a PM. No response.

[danneeoo]

Your view about insider status in art is laughable, TUOT89. If you think that name checking Gago... or Zwir..., whose mentions, like you I presume, I would rather keep ungoogleable since they have nothing to do with this discussion, conveys some sort of insider status in the art world, well, add that to the things I'm baffled about. That's like saying name checking Spiel... or Finch... makes you an insider in Hollywood. Yes, bigvalboy, the more you know.

 

What's more, I haven't spoken to either of those men so why would I name check them? Even if I had, in either scenario, it would have been irresponsible. I haven't name checked anyone throughout this entire thread for an abundance of reasons. I intentionally used the vague "head" because I wasn't referring to museum directors, who too have people they work for, any of whom might be vaguely referred to as a "head of." Believe what you want, but I am referencing conversations I have had that expressed surprise in both instances, not only about the art but about how people at the highest end are deciding to stash their money in many seemingly hot, so-called "currencies."

 

For the record, yes Christie's and London were crossed wires, while typing and talking to someone at the same time. I doubt you'll believe me but I don't care.

 

Your fixation on disproving me while proving how small minded you are and how literal you need things to be when someone is being purposely and openly ambiguous is beyond me. So is whatever ax you have to grind with me. The only point I can see to your posts is to illustrate that you're an art world insider, which may or may not be the case, as laughable as I may or may not find the way you try to express it. The difference between you and me is that, again, I don't care. I do care about standing by my credibility enough to get my job done.

 

At this point, I'm done with responding to people who don't believe who I am. The convertible have been converted and those convinced otherwise never will be swayed at this point. I'm ok with that, and hopefully further on my way to getting my work needs resolved to boot.

 

 

As a general rule, when telling a lie don't embellish and don't digress. The digressions and embellishments may expose the lie.

 

First of all, no real museum director is surprised by the prices, only you are. This has been going on for quite a while. Anyone who follows the art world closely or even just dabbles in the market may be frustrated by the whole thing, but not surprised.

 

Second of all, the two "heads of a major museum" who have been talking to you seem as misinformed as you are. Why would those "heads" be talking about the auctions in London this month, when the auctions this month were in NYC? Was that just an innocent error on your part? I doubt it.

 

Moreover, why would the "head of a major world museum" be talking to you? Does your boss also entrust you with selecting which "major world museums" are going to get the art he supposedly buys? You know the art he has been buying for years, but whose prices are still a surprise to you. Next time you want to lie about these things, say you talked to Larry G or David Z about these things. While neither would have shared your surprise over the prices, contact with them would have been more credible.

 

I recognize how much easier it was to say "head of a major world museum" than to say Larry G or David Z because mentioning the latter would have required some inside knowledge as to their stature in the art world and how much the art they sell costs. Understandably, you did not want to risk associating your fictional boss with gallerists who did not befit his fictional status. However, the problem with saying "head of a major world museum" is that the term itself introduces doubt. The term "museum director" would have been sufficient. It is the job title. That's how people like your fictional boss would know such persons and recognize them. So, why the overemphasis, unless you were talking about something you did not really know firsthand? Were you just trying to impress us? Perhaps, but even that motive raises other doubts. Whatever the case, there is enough doubt now to make your whole account questionable. After all, if you would lie about talking to the "head of a major world museum," well... (My work here is done.)

[danneeoo]

I also sent him a PM. No response.

 

Replied!

[Indigo]

Gosh, this OP who happens to be a head assistant of some supposed bigwig sure has plenty of free time to spend on this forum. His run on posts are positively epic in length. I must say I am tickled senseless by this act! Keep up the good work danneeo!

[Guest Starbuck]

Your fixation on disproving me while proving how small minded you are and how literal you need things to be when someone is being purposely and openly ambiguous is beyond me.

 

Whereas your fixation--your eager need--to rebut TUOT89's points (and those of every single other poster who doubts you) tells us what about you?

[+ goosh69]

If you can talk your boss out of requiring the escort not post face pix, I highly recommend Rob Yaeger, whom I've recently engaged a couple of times. He's bright -- he has a law degree from Columbia -- very sociable, witty and conversant. His body is spectacular and his technique in the sack is as great as it gets.

 

Ummmm I know what Rob looks like via rentboy ads you lie like a rug.

 

Also no -assistants at top Wall Street firms do NOT routinely act as pimps for their boss.

[Guest SilverDollar]

Just to complete the record, I did receive a response from the OP to my PM. It was thoughtful and pertinent. In my opinion, whatever you may think of the merits of this inquiry and I do not think much of it, it is legit.

[greatnorthernp]

I'm very proud to say that one part of my very first job after growing up and leaving my parents' home was to clean the toilets of the super rich. (I can testify that their shit does indeed stink.)

 

It's funny. After seeing that whole social and domestic milieu up close for a few months, it lost its luster forever. Even "Downton Abbey" seems repulsive to me, so I don't watch it, although I can understand people's fascination.

 

As for "Fifty Shades of Grey", its anaemic bibliographic children and pallid imitators, the less said the better.

[nycbystander]

Sounds like an updated version of an old Gordon Merrick novel

[rguer]

Whereas your fixation--your eager need--to rebut TUOT89's points (and those of every single other poster who doubts you) tells us what about you?

 

It tells us that he has the right personality for his job.

[rguer]

Also no -assistants at top Wall Street firms do NOT routinely act as pimps for their boss.

 

Wasn't it previously established that he was hired by the boss, not the boss's company?

[rguer]

Gosh, this OP who happens to be a head assistant of some supposed bigwig sure has plenty of free time to spend on this forum. His run on posts are positively epic in length. I must say I am tickled senseless by this act! Keep up the good work danneeo!

 

I know a few people on Facebook who seem capable of producing long, long posts in no time at all. They think fast and type fast.

[+ goosh69]

i meant it's not normal for exec assistants to do this. It may happen. But it's NOT the norm.