This illustrates my key point perfectly. This entire discussion is completely based on nomenclature. I was using the term "service" broadly to include ambiance, cleanliness, and quality. I value your opinion highly Jaycee, but I feel like this is the same discussion people are having on the SB/SD issue..
Originally Posted by sketchball82
I am flattered you value my opinion. Despite our differences of views I find your ability to state your case politely and with decorum very refreshing and admirable.
At the end of the day, there is not yet a governing body that dictates what constitutes a SB/SD relationship. Until we have a US Department of "Sugar" that proposes a rule to precisely define sugar arrangements, we're going to keep having these discussions, much like you and I are now apparently disagreeing over the breadth of the term "service". But for convenience sake, why is it wrong to use the terms that the SDs have been using for years (which I add is far more precise then lumping any long-term arrangement into the SB category)?.
Originally Posted by sketchball82
I do not believe it is wrong at all. I believe in differing points of views in entirety. Yes I concur there is a redundancy in the constant repetition of argument. However, I feel strongly, it is important that all points of view be considered. If only one side had it's say it would remove the complication of variation but on the same token it would diminish what others feel they have. An arrangement be it sugar arrangement, "hooker on demand", Singular hour rendezvous or even a simple side street pick up of a obvious prostitute, in some way is a relationship. Brief or long. Each type of temporary or long term relationship meets the needs of those involved. How they wish to label their relationship is their own personal perspectives. To the common housewife a sugar baby is indeed without a doubt a prostitute. To a highly practicing religious person a trophy wife is also a low life prostitute. Two men married is not a marriage to some. A swinging couple is simply two people whom cheat on each other with permission to another. It all varies upon the perspective of the viewer. I have always believed everyone had the right to have their own perspective. No matter what the subject. If GY6's young lady feels applebee's is the finest restraint in the world she is not wrong. He is amazing and thoughtful to take her to a place she enjoys to that extreme of an extent. One man's diamond is another man's pearl. One woman's gold is another woman's copper.
Honestly however, it feels like several are arguing so diligently because they want to be a member of the SB/SD club. GY6 may call your arrangement a hooker on retainer. You may call his an exclusive version of a SB/SD arrangement. Who really gives a shit? The problem is that by changing the terms and using them differently on the same board, all we're doing is devaluing those terms and making them very imprecise, creating a muck of confusion to where no one understands and now instead of just saying "hooker-on-retainer" or "SB" we have to explain what the fuck that means. Every. Time..
Originally Posted by sketchball82
Here is where I find myself stuttered. The description of care remains the same. Taking care of the woman in question. Offering her a better life option and mentoring her to better herself while delivering experiences or material things she may not be able to attain herself. Yet the moment the fact that she may be a provider comes into play she can no longer be considered a sugar baby. I counter with the fact that if a waitress is called a sugar baby she is not a sugar baby. She is a waitress first and foremost by this set of guidelines. One's occupation should not place them in a perpetual stigma. It is cruel to judge based upon a singular angle. If one was to be judged on this one status it not only devalues the woman but also it gives that same woman permission to sink into all of the profiles placed on her by the masses. If a courtesan is just a prostitute and cannot be more than this, she might as well indulge in recreational drugs, robbing people, and resign herself to a life of being detested by the masses. It is limiting to tell a provider she cannot be something. If she truly desires to be a sugar baby she should and can put forth the effort to be one, in my humble opinion.
If you're going to argue with me, honestly ask yourself if you've every talked with a group of people outside of this thread about what a SB/SD relationship is. I have. GY6 has. We've spent literally years discussing and encouraging would be daddies there, trying to help them out. If you have a credible reason for why the definitions that all the SDs on these boards use are wrong, then by all means call us on it. But if you're arguing semantics with us because you would rather be (or in the case of gentlemen think of your girl as) a SB than a hooker-on-retainer, please spare us. This is a hooker board. We gave up all of our modesty when we created our accounts.
Originally Posted by sketchball82
Though I do not see myself as arguing so much as stating an alternate view point, I would like to mention I have spoken outside of eccie. I have had several arrangements outside of this board. My experiences have enlightened me and even cultivated my actions and reactions to varying arrangements. Stimulate, from my perspective, was the ideal definition of an sugar daddy. By all accounts I am sure it is not hard to tell he was mine some time ago. He was not now, nor then, a hobbiest. I would not consider him a hobbiest now even. I highly value his opinion and friendship because he was and still is a mentor to me.
Though I disagree with GY6 and find him abrasive in his point of view I can both understand and respect his point of view.
I do however respect your opinion a little more than his as it is stated with decorum and intellectual validity. I fear we will likely never agree, which is sad. I think in a different world had my choices in life been different you and I may have been friends, or likely never have met.
"JayceeRivers...
'Ma Lady, you are indeed as Eloquent and Refined as I have encountered.
Please delight this humble Admirer, by telling me your working on your Memoirs."
-Thank you for the compliment. I fear at this time I am not working on a memoir. Perhaps in the future.
