No offense intended Solitaire, but you seem to be under the impression that a sugar relationship implies some sort of minimum standard that the sugar baby does not have to work, gets smothered in gifts and compensation, and that the relationship is her job. With all respect, that seems to be the mentality of a provider.
SB/SD arrangements aren't "jobs." It is true that there are daddies that pay as if it were. But there are also babies that accept far far less than their worth. That is the basis of statistics; there are people outside of the middle group on both sides. In the case of sugar arrangements, I would assume that high paying daddies are either unfamiliar with market costs, love to throw their money around, or overbid because they were dead-set on one particular baby and wanted to ensure that she chose him as a daddy instead of any other potential competition. That being said, if our babies are having a hard time paying for their rent, are we supposed to give them a Prada bag (sugar as you call it) as they get evicted while they fail in their day-to-day responsibilities?
My point is that SD/SB relationships are just like any other economic service, subject to supply-and-demand and worth a economically determined amount. Some babies prefer "sugar" as you call it. Some babies prefer rent. Some babies want it all and believe that their worth 5 times or 10 times what the market says they're worth, and that's ok. But at the same time, we call that mentality GPS, and more than likely (unless that girl is truly unique and someone decides to overbid her because he's dead-set on her), she'll never find an arrangement when an equally hot girl living 200 years away will accept the standard arrangement.
As a side note, $600-$1kish per month is a reasonable arrangement at the moment. As such, Whispers is actually being quite generous in his arrangement.
Originally Posted by sketchball82
No offense taken, Hon.
Actually *traditionally*, as in during my mom's generation, when those ladies said they had "found a Sugar-Daddy", there was the expectation that she would not have to work, devoting her time to be "on-call" for him. She may be in a mistress position to a wife, or a live-in GF, or independently housed, either way she would have been non-working and available.
My position on this - today it has evolved, but Sugar Daddies still provide a good bit of support - but the defining factor today is "mutually beneficial" - and today we are more open about what those benefits are.
HOWEVER, my reply to Whispers was because he, 1) mocked the guys who were averaging the general expense to around $5000/month, and 2) he gave figures claiming that was this poor girl's TOTAL SUPPORT... I simply called bullshit on it.
He responds to me after clarifying some things, and his clarification is sufficient... and we see that what he listed was NOT in fact this girls TOTAL support. My point has been made.
Just for perspective, back in the 80's, when my mom and her friends were dating in this fashion, those ladies were pulling in around $2-3000/month. I came of age in Sugar... and it wasn't Prada... in addition to basic necessities, it was my mom never having to tell me she didn't have money for school items/clothes, or that I couldn't go to the mall with my friends, etc. It meant she didn't have to worry about such things. And she had her hair/nails and pretty things too.
And as for me confusing it with with a job... ALL relationships are work, particularly for a woman! I am not confused about that in the least. I only require gentlemen to make it worth my while.