missdependant Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 I have a cousin who uses a website like sugardaddy.com. or something like that. She's met quite a few different guys and says she hasn't had sex with any of them. They have taken her to a lot of different places around the world like Ireland, Egypt, Australia, the Netherlands, NYC (she's in California), the Bahamas and Puerto Rico. She says she hasn't had sex with any of them, but acts like MAYBE she will some day. Not really my cup of tea.. but she's always wanted to travel so I guess it works for her. And the men that she goes with are moderately attractive, and it's not like they can't afford it, and they literally don't want to go on a vacation like this alone. So it works out for both sides.
donnamaybe Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 She'll say that to not sound like a prostitute to her friends and family. But does anyone but her and her man "friends" REALLY know what goes on between them?
missdependant Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 She'll say that to not sound like a prostitute to her friends and family. But does anyone but her and her man "friends" REALLY know what goes on between them? Trust me, she would tell me because I AM her family, I've known her since I was born, and there's no need to keep secrets from me. She knows I won't judge her. Not only that, but I know of every other sexual encounter she's ever had. We're like best friends. Assume what you want, but considering I know her personally and she's never kept things like this a secret from me before... I doubt she would start now.
a4a Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 Thank you. That is what my friend was telling me, sometimes tehy just want a nice attractive young girl to go out with them to their country club or to events. You don't have to have sex with these men. But if they are attractive AND have money it would be hard to resist after awhile! No you don't have to have sex with them. As a matter a fact thinking back on this I used to know a black guy that came to the business I managed. I had an issue with my car and he gave me $500 to fix it. I never slept with him - he was loaded. I was probably like 22 at the time. The bill was like $1200 if I remember and I was short. I went to pay him back and he told me to keep it. I didn't sleep with him. I did invite him to all my parties before and after....... he never laid a finger on me or asked to. I am a prostitute...... gold digger.... whore? Yes the SD I know does want intelligent good looking ladies to go with him to events. If you are single you do need a date to some of these functions. Not sure if people are aware of the events that occur in high corp. positions. Your date you bring best not be a gum snapping crack whore. Golf tournies, polo matches, corp dinners............ chugging beer is not an option and ordering a "chabliss" is not an option.
donnamaybe Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 Your date you bring best not be a gum snapping crack whore. You just painted a VERY vivid image with that one!
grogster Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 This thread is making me want to become a sugardaddy. I know what you mean. There appears to be some demand!
donnamaybe Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 I know what you mean. There appears to be some demand! You don't come across as that pathetic and desperate for female attention.
grogster Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 You don't come across as that pathetic and desperate for female attention. I'm not. I know that reasonable minds can differ, but I find a relationship based predominately on gifting to be demeaning and humiliating for both parties to the transaction. The sugardaddy showers gifts on the younger woman because he knows that, without material benefits, she would not even consider becoming his "friend" with benefits. The sugardaddy uses material wealth to compensate for age's dimming of attractiveness, vitality, vigor and virility. While the gifted woman benefits materially, she too loses something in the transaction: her self-respect and reputation. Materially, could I enter into a sugardaddy transaction? In a heart beat. Would I? Not now, not ever.
n9688m Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 I'm not. I know that reasonable minds can differ, but I find a relationship based predominately on gifting to be demeaning and humiliating for both parties to the transaction. But many marriages are in reality no different - it just isn't spoken. Alimony takes it a step further and enforces the arrangement under threat of imprisonment if the man does not comply.
Bells Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Has any women here been involved with a man where you gave him companionship and in return he gave you money/gifts? I know a few women who are in arrangements like that, some of the men paid for their college education and they claim they didn't have to have sex with them. One of them told me about a website where you can get a sugardaddy, but some of the men on there seem kind of creepy:sick: I knew of a woman like this....my friend's sister in law was a single 30 something woman with no kids, never married who did this with men. They'd by her nice cars and other nice things just to be in her company, even sexually. She didn't have to work for a living. It's like prostitution, but it's bartering for sex instead.
a4a Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 I'm not. I know that reasonable minds can differ, but I find a relationship based predominately on gifting to be demeaning and humiliating for both parties to the transaction. The sugardaddy showers gifts on the younger woman because he knows that, without material benefits, she would not even consider becoming his "friend" with benefits. The sugardaddy uses material wealth to compensate for age's dimming of attractiveness, vitality, vigor and virility. While the gifted woman benefits materially, she too loses something in the transaction: her self-respect and reputation. Materially, could I enter into a sugardaddy transaction? In a heart beat. Would I? Not now, not ever. How is hanging out with someone that takes you places or buys you things - that you enjoy being around - causes one to lose their self respect or ruin a reputation? You like a guy, he is loaded and pays the dinner bill all the time..... you just are not in love and don't see him as a life partner.... sounds like casual dating to me. Have you never footed the bill for your friends to have them go places with you? You do realize not all Sugardaddies want sex, sometimes it is about companionship and sharing an experience outside of the bedroom. Not all SD's are old men either. If you are a one woman man - no being a SD is not for you. But many men don't want to be tied down to just one woman. Many women don't want to be tied down to just one man. Nor desire monogamy. If you had a girlfriend(s) and were rich would you take them places and foot the bill if you were rich and liked sharing time with them? Or are you just too cheap to do that?
nittygritty Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Spin it however you want. If the "gold standard" is a person's standard, then they'll just have to reap what they sow. Like the gal whose story I told. NOW she knows what she SHOULD have been focusing on. Too little too late. I wonder how her daughter is doing. She should have been focusing on finding a man she could shack up with that wasn't financially successful? The 50 year old bank teller woman did manage to have and raise a daughter. Perhaps her parenting responsibilities were her primary focus for 18 to 21 years? Her love relationships had the same, less than 50% chance of working out as everybody else.
grogster Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 But many marriages are in reality no different - it just isn't spoken. Alimony takes it a step further and enforces the arrangement under threat of imprisonment if the man does not comply. Marriage is, in part, an economic transaction. The family is an economic unit. I don't deny that. People marry for many reasons. By marriage, I'm referring to spouses who are age cohorts as opposed to sugardaddy relationships where the parties' age difference is substantial, dramatic and noticeable. The kind of relationship where one asks: "What does she see in that old codger?" You know it when you see it.
n9688m Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 By marriage, I'm referring to spouses who are age cohorts as opposed to sugardaddy relationships where the parties' age difference is substantial, dramatic and noticeable. The kind of relationship where one asks: "What does she see in that old codger?" So it's OK to marry for money if you marry someone close to your own age but not if you marry someone much older? I'm not sure I follow that. How about the old joke: Would you sleep with me for $1 Million? "Of course" Would you sleep with me for $300? "What kind of a girl do you think I am." Money is involved in any relationship - it's just a matter of degree.
donnamaybe Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 She should have been focusing on finding a man she could shack up with that wasn't financially successful? The 50 year old bank teller woman did manage to have and raise a daughter. Perhaps her parenting responsibilities were her primary focus for 18 to 21 years? Her love relationships had the same, less than 50% chance of working out as everybody else. Why does it have to be "all or nothing" with some of you people? Read for content, please, not for what you can find to pick at, and you'll get my point. I said if you focus FIRST AND FOREMOST ON MONEY, you'll wind up with problems. NEVER did I say you have to find a man that is not financially successful. <--- Right back at ya. If she had focused on the content of the man, she may have wound up with someone with money. MY focus on the money aspect was that the man I was with had to AT LEAST take care of his own financial needs. I can take care of myself and my children. I'm not willing, however, to be anyone's sugar mama (or sugar baby). I have a little too much self respect for that.
donnamaybe Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 It's like prostitution, but it's bartering for sex instead. Exactly! Bartering for time on your back.
a4a Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Marriage is, in part, an economic transaction. The family is an economic unit. I don't deny that. People marry for many reasons. By marriage, I'm referring to spouses who are age cohorts as opposed to sugardaddy relationships where the parties' age difference is substantial, dramatic and noticeable. The kind of relationship where one asks: "What does she see in that old codger?" You know it when you see it. It is not always a huge age difference. See my SD example of the musician he "dates". And I always wonder why poor ugly guys have good looking girls....... they must be hung like horses? What is she doing with that puddin' face? SD R's are not one night stands. They can go on for a long time even a lifetime. Remember (most) women don't always take a mans looks into acct. as long as he treats her right and shows her affection - he is gorgeous in her eyes. (treating her right also includes taking her places and gifts) Just about all men take looks as the most important thing. Ask a man why he started dating his wife - usually the first answer is "she was good looking" - not "she liked me and she was funny and ugly". So a SD R is actually probably a win win situation. And again you don't have to want to get married or be monogamous to date someone you enjoy being with. You certainly can want to express you affection through gift giving. I am sure people have bought gifts for friends and not been in love with them. Like I said many many SD relationship are also about enjoyment and affection. Just on a open basis. Casual..... light.... but not one night stands. Relationships are not always about marriage and making babies. Some are meant to be just fun and enjoyable for both parties.
nittygritty Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 I'm with a man, not a boy. He washes ALL his own laundry, does dishes, remodels our house, brings home a good paycheck, plays music with me, cooks, is an absolute STALLION in bed, etc. etc. etc. A very satisfying life, to be sure. Had money been my FIRST criteria in a man, I would never have found the prize I have. Sounds like bartering for time on your back.
donnamaybe Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Sounds like bartering for time on your back. That was the most ridiculous, inane comment I've EVER read on LS, and I've read A LOT! Doomis!
donnamaybe Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Why does it have to be "all or nothing" with some of you people? Read for content, please, not for what you can find to pick at, and you'll get my point. I said if you focus FIRST AND FOREMOST ON MONEY, you'll wind up with problems. NEVER did I say you have to find a man that is not financially successful. <--- Right back at ya. If she had focused on the content of the man, she may have wound up with someone with money. MY focus on the money aspect was that the man I was with had to AT LEAST take care of his own financial needs. I can take care of myself and my children. I'm not willing, however, to be anyone's sugar mama (or sugar baby). I have a little too much self respect for that. Notice how this post made too much sense for NG and he had to go back and try to find something ELSE to pick at? LMFAOROTF!!!! As if I don't do things for my man OUTSIDE of the bedroom. Pathetic.
a4a Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Exactly! Bartering for time on your back. You are not understanding that all of these R's are not based on sex...... nor sex alone. These are not one night stands. Men with money have the ability to attract a larger variety of women. Just like good looking women can attract a larger variety of men. So rich man attracts hot woman...... Niether are into Marriage or Babies....... Man likes woman..... woman likes man. Man buys woman car..... now woman is a whore because she had sex with a rich man that bought her a car and they continue to see eachother, call, and go to functions together...... She is not "in love" with him and doesn't want marriage and to pump out a litter of babies..... whore! She enjoys his company..... he enjoys her company. Whore..... So as long as she wants to get married because of love it is ok to accept his gifts and continue in this relationship without the label of hooker? So in theory anyone who dates a guy that gives gifts or pays for things is a whore if she doesn't want to marry him? However if you are dating a hot looking poor guy that cannot afford gifts and you don't want to marry him but sleep with him you are not a whore? One guy offers gifts the other good looks..... depends on what makes you attracted to them in that case...... looks or money and the ability to provide experiences beyond ones own financial means. FWBs = ok FWBs when man picks up tab or buys gifts = bad BTW - guys don't normally/initially ask women out on dates because they picture what their children will look like. They usually ask a woman out because they want to get into their pants. If I am wrong about that LS men........ lemme know.
grogster Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 It is not always a huge age difference. See my SD example of the musician he "dates". And I always wonder why poor ugly guys have good looking girls....... they must be hung like horses? What is she doing with that puddin' face? SD R's are not one night stands. They can go on for a long time even a lifetime. Remember (most) women don't always take a mans looks into acct. as long as he treats her right and shows her affection - he is gorgeous in her eyes. (treating her right also includes taking her places and gifts) Just about all men take looks as the most important thing. Ask a man why he started dating his wife - usually the first answer is "she was good looking" - not "she liked me and she was funny and ugly". So a SD R is actually probably a win win situation. And again you don't have to want to get married or be monogamous to date someone you enjoy being with. You certainly can want to express you affection through gift giving. I am sure people have bought gifts for friends and not been in love with them. Like I said many many SD relationship are also about enjoyment and affection. Just on a open basis. Casual..... light.... but not one night stands. Relationships are not always about marriage and making babies. Some are meant to be just fun and enjoyable for both parties. As always, there's a problem with definition (or perception). My take on SD relationships is not yours, a4a. You define a SD relationship very broadly, as a casual one involving neither kids, marriage or commitment. I don't believe, however, that most people equate a SD relationship with a casual relationship. Answers.com defines the term as this: "n. Slang. A wealthy, usually older man who gives expensive gifts to a young person in return for sexual favors or companionship." That's also how I see it: but for a rich old guy gifting a younger more attractive lover, that lover would not be in the relationship. Erotically speaking, the SD and his young lover are not mating equals. Money, however, turns into the great equalizer. Again, I have no moral/religious or ethical objections to SD relationships. It's on aesthetic grounds that I dislike them. The elderly SD, in my view, looks silly and the young lover, opportunistic. I'm very open to casual sex--the kinkier the better. I'm just not thrilled palling around with someone who looks like she could be my daughter, and who I know would not have given me a second look had I not showered gifts upon her. That's just me. Call it a matter of pride. I understand everyone is different.
n9688m Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 I'm very open to casual sex--the kinkier the better. I'm just not thrilled palling around with someone who looks like she could be my daughter, and who I know would not have given me a second look had I not showered gifts upon her. Do you see any difference between a SD/non-marriage relationship vs. a "trophy wife" marriage?
nittygritty Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Why does it have to be "all or nothing" with some of you people? Read for content, please, not for what you can find to pick at, and you'll get my point. I said if you focus FIRST AND FOREMOST ON MONEY, you'll wind up with problems. NEVER did I say you have to find a man that is not financially successful. <--- Right back at ya. If she had focused on the content of the man, she may have wound up with someone with money. MY focus on the money aspect was that the man I was with had to AT LEAST take care of his own financial needs. I can take care of myself and my children. I'm not willing, however, to be anyone's sugar mama (or sugar baby). I have a little too much self respect for that. It sounds like you're the one that's defining relationships as "all or nothing" by the definition of a woman being nothing unless she's committed to and living with a man. Not every woman would deem your man "a prize". It's great that you do but some women wouldn't want to live with a man that can "AT LEAST take care of his own financial needs" or do his "own laundry" simply because it's not enough. The risks are greater than the reward. They don't want the loss of personal freedom that goes along with the responsibility of the obligation.
Recommended Posts