RogueAngel19 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I used to think sugar babies were gold diggers until a friend of mine tried it for a bit and apparently it was more of a business relationship then anything. She never had sex with the guys for money or anything it was more about companionship than a sexual relationship. Personally i could never do that but i would love a good friend who would pay for my college that would be nice. Anyway i just want people's opinion on this kind of relationship. Do you think its good or bad or even just justified? Let me know your thoughts. Link to post Share on other sites
kiss_andmakeup Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I think the ones who said they didn't have any kind of sexual relationship with the "daddies" are lying. They all want some kind of sexual gratification eventually, that is the return on their investment. But if you meet a wealthy man who offers to pay you through college in exchange for platonic friendship, do let us know and tell us where you found him! Link to post Share on other sites
espec10001 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 It's called prostitution, apparently the oldest business in history. Link to post Share on other sites
aerogurl87 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 It's called prostitution, apparently the oldest business in history. All relationships involve some type of payment in one way or another. I think a sugar baby/sugar daddy relationship is just a little more upfront. A man wants sex out of a relationship and a woman wants to feel appreciated. Well the woman gets some money and gets to be spoiled and thus she gets to feel like she's appreciated. In return the man gets some sex without having to deal with the drama most normal relationships provide. Also it's not like the woman is sleeping with tons of men just for money. Their relationship isn't just all about the money for sex, it goes a little deeper than that and I'd have to say it's more akin to a friends with benefits type of thing or being a mistress than being a prostitute. It's when a woman doesn't like the man and doesn't really care about him as a person, and just screws him for the money that it becomes prostitution, although for many women that line is very blurry and can be easily crossed. Well I will quote the Boondocks and then be on my way. When Riley was discussing with his brother about how all women are whores it went this way. Riley: Ok well if they not all hoes then why I got to pay to take them out to eat then. I mean I'm paying, that's payment.... Why don't I just give her the money I was gonna spend on dinner and that ho can go grocery shopping? Link to post Share on other sites
boldjack Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Sorry Aero, but you are trying to rationalize away the stigma. If money changes hands, then it is prostitution. I have no problem with that, just be honest about it. Link to post Share on other sites
aerogurl87 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Sorry Aero, but you are trying to rationalize away the stigma. If money changes hands, then it is prostitution. I have no problem with that, just be honest about it. I think it depends. I've known some sugar babies and they're not really prostitutes. I mean if a guy is dating a girl and paying all her bills, is she a prostitute? I think it's in the same vein but people are stuck with the old stigma of a sugar baby being a hot young, gold digger who is screwing some old man for his dough and then spending it like crazy on frivilous items. Well the world's changed. There are actually young, single, hot guys who are sugar daddies but don't have time to go out and date so they decide to just find a hot, young woman to spend their free time with who doesn't want the same restraints a traditional relationship has. And if they are going on dates and actually dating, and he just happens to be paying her bills, does that still make her a prostitute? Link to post Share on other sites
aerogurl87 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Agreed. It was a very bad analogy. In a REAL relationship, partners treat EACH OTHER. It's not always the man paying the woman's way. Unless he's a doormat. I think that you can "treat each other" in ways that don't always involve money, but that's just me. And the point was, all relationships include some type of bartering (one thing in exchange for another). No one gives someone something unless they are going to be getting something in return, because that's just human nature. I think a sugar daddy/sugar baby relationship is just a little more upfront about it. Link to post Share on other sites
Untouchable_Fire Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 All relationships involve some type of payment in one way or another. I think a sugar baby/sugar daddy relationship is just a little more upfront. A man wants sex out of a relationship and a woman wants to feel appreciated. Well the woman gets some money and gets to be spoiled and thus she gets to feel like she's appreciated. So... $$$ = Appreciation? Riley: Ok well if they not all hoes then why I got to pay to take them out to eat then. I mean I'm paying, that's payment.... Why don't I just give her the money I was gonna spend on dinner and that ho can go grocery shopping? I've heard this kind of reasoning before and while funny... it isn't correct. If you try to relate all of your relationships to monetary transactions... you will find life very empty. It's the emotional bonds that matter. Link to post Share on other sites
boldjack Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Aero, I said nothing about any stereotypes. If money or "gifts ", change hands, it is a form of prostitution, and nothing more. I'm also not saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm just calling a spade , a spade. Of course you can make as many qualifications and excuses as you would like to , but that doesn't change the basic financial nature of the relationship. Link to post Share on other sites
boldjack Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 BTW, as further proof, how many of these "relationships", turn into LTR's or good, loving marriages? Very, very, few. Link to post Share on other sites
aerogurl87 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 If you try to relate all of your relationships to monetary transactions... you will find life very empty. It's the emotional bonds that matter. I agree, but believe it or not there are sugar daddies who have great emotional bonds with their sugar babies. Hence why I said it's more akin to being a FWB or mistress than prostitution. Also money doesn't equal prostitution but I've never met a woman who got a gift from her man and didn't say it made her feel good and appreciated. Bottom line is it's like this: Prostitutes/Escorts get paid by the hour and/or deed. Sugar babies get a fixed monthly allowance and/or spoiling (gifts, trips, etc.) Link to post Share on other sites
boldjack Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 So Aero, you are saying that the only difference between a prostitute and a sugarbaby, is the duration of the transaction? Come now, you can't really believe this. I always thought you were smarter than that. Link to post Share on other sites
torranceshipman Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Exchanging sex for money is prostitution. There's no reason why this shouldn't be an ongoing contract & maybe even a friendship develops. That doesn't change the fact that it is sex for money ; I.e. Prostitution. It is just a much more socialy accepted format that isn't as cold as the 'regular' type of prostitution (meet a stranger once and have sex). I guess it is a much more civilized way of conducting the ancient trade (-; Link to post Share on other sites
aerogurl87 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Yeah, okay. In REAL relationships, you do things for your SO because you want them to be happy. In a sugar daddy/baby situation, the "daddy" does things for the "baby" to get sex. So exactly what makes a sugar daddy/baby relationship not qualify as real in your book? If he genuinely gets feelings for her and tries to help her out financially and is there for her when she needs someone to be there for her and she's there for him, you want to tell me that makes their relationship fake? Yes the initial basis for it is superficial, but last time I checked there are alot of REAL relationships out there have a similar superficial basis from the get go (ex. guy sees hot girl and decides to take her on a date. Realizes she has a good personality and decides to then actually pursue a relationship with her). By the way, for most men who have alot of money if they just wanted a fling or sex they could just call up the local escort service or find a girl at a club to pick up. Most men who are sugar daddies do it because they lack an emotional connection with someone also in their lives. Link to post Share on other sites
boldjack Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Spot on, Torrance. Link to post Share on other sites
aerogurl87 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 But that is the difference in a SD/SB situation. The SB's do NOT have a great emotional bond with their SD in return such as in a REAL relationship between two who are in love. So they can't fall in love now? Link to post Share on other sites
aerogurl87 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Exchanging sex for money is prostitution. There's no reason why this shouldn't be an ongoing contract & maybe even a friendship develops. That doesn't change the fact that it is sex for money ; I.e. Prostitution. It is just a much more socialy accepted format that isn't as cold as the 'regular' type of prostitution (meet a stranger once and have sex). I guess it is a much more civilized way of conducting the ancient trade (-; I said the line is extremely blurry and easy to cross. Link to post Share on other sites
boldjack Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Aero, do you want to have a real debate or do you just want to make up hypothetical situations , to prove your point? Paying for a relationship is prostitution, pure and simple. What becomes of this relationship, how the two people feel, where it leads, how long it lasts, or if it changes, does not change the fact that it is prostitution Link to post Share on other sites
aerogurl87 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Aero, do you want to have a real debate or do you just want to make up hypothetical situations , to prove your point? Paying for a relationship is prostitution, pure and simple. What becomes of this relationship, how the two people feel, where it leads, how long it lasts, or if it changes, does not change the fact that it is prostitution Boldjack I'm just saying, if that's prostitution then I can tell you of a whole lot of women who are prostitutes and just don't know it yet. Because I know lots of women who are in situations which are eeriely similar to that of a sugar daddy and sugar baby but just don't know it. But I think the OP would have to talk to someone who's been there, done that to get a better view on things. I know most people think it's prostitution, but I think it's a step, maybe even a hair above it. Hence why many get the lines crossed and then become prostitutes but still call themselves sugar babies. If it's just money for sex then you're a prostitute. But if you throw friendship and possibly love in there, then that's when things get complicated. Link to post Share on other sites
aerogurl87 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I'm saying that's not what she's in it for, and no - SHE will NOT fall in love with anything but his wallet. To every rule there are exceptions jja470. That is all I will say. Link to post Share on other sites
boldjack Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I see your point, Aero, but that doesn't change the original financial nature of the relationship= prostitution. I'm not saying that the relationship can't change, or become more like a loving relationship (all though very rare)I am just saying that, in it's original form, it is prostitution. Link to post Share on other sites
aerogurl87 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I see your point, Aero, but that doesn't change the original financial nature of the relationship= prostitution. I'm not saying that the relationship can't change, or become more like a loving relationship (all though very rare)I am just saying that, in it's original form, it is prostitution. I see your point boldjack and I respect what you have to say. As for jja470 Anna Nicole was a gold digger. But a friend I have fell in love with her sugar daddy and stopped taking his money because she didn't want it anymore. For her being with him was better than any Louis Vuitton purse she could buy at the mall. And guess what? They are engaged now, so yes to every rule there are exceptions. Link to post Share on other sites
aerogurl87 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 (edited) So if a guy frequented the same street corner prostitute and, over time, they fell in love, would that make her NEVER a prostitute in her past? I think you missed my point. I was saying that not every woman who's a sugar baby and that fell in love with her sugar daddy was just a gold digger. And no it doesn't change the fact that she was a sugar baby. You can't make absolute generalizations about one group of people because for every rule there is an exception, and I don't think even you can't challenge that fact. Edited November 3, 2009 by aerogurl87 Link to post Share on other sites
espec10001 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 A relationship established on an exchange of money for sex/companionship is prostitution no matter how you want to "sugar" coat it (pun intended) . Not that I really care what someone else does, if this works for them, great, but for me as a man the chances of me developing true "feelings" for a woman who is with me for my money and not for me is slim to none. This is why men who have money and want a real companion should be smart and hide it when you are first dating, and as females should be smart and not give up the sex so easily either. But morals are out the window in America so does it really matter anymore? Link to post Share on other sites
MissJoness Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I don't see anything wrong with it. I've considered it actually. Just find one who doesn't want sex and you're fine. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts