Sugarbaby Sugardaddy: your thoughts?

...you've taken my thoughts so far out of context I won't bother to respond...and I've heard you are relatively bright....????? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Relatively bright to what? Hookers? Women in general? You?

I'm unclear on both how your words were taken out of context (since they were quoted) or what it is I'm "relatively bright" to, exactly....

you are so far gone it isn't worth discussing....you make Summerhill seem rational.....

He can buy it out right, but a transfer (quit claim however you want to call it) for $1.00 wouldn't hold in a court. Transfer for $100. and a court would consider it "value." One dollar is too low and deemed invalid. Originally Posted by SR Only

I wasn't even thinking that $100 would pass the test. What I meant was selling it at cost but financing a mortgage and that the interest rate would have to be in the ballpark of what current rates are. Otherwise it wouldn't pass the test and would be called a gift with all the tax implications.

I wasn't even thinking that $100 would pass the test. What I meant was selling it at cost but financing a mortgage and that the interest rate would have to be in the ballpark of what current rates are. Otherwise it wouldn't pass the test and would be called a gift with all the tax implications. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Okay I didn't know you were covering tax implications. Yes, I bet it could be read as "income." But IANAL, and maybe one of the Diamonds or Tuxes practices tax law and could give an opinion.

Since I am not a mod nor do I play one on TV, but I am the original poster: Hey altcomedy and SydneyB no more coffee for you two! Chill!

Okay I didn't know you were covering tax implications. Yes, I bet it could be read as "income." But IANAL, and maybe one of the Diamonds or Tuxes practices tax law and could give an opinion.

Since I am not a mod nor do I play one on TV, but I am the original poster: Hey altcomedy and SydneyB no more coffee for you two! Chill! Originally Posted by SR Only

Syd & I should both probably take it easy on the hi-caf stuff

As for the house -- it is either income or a gift....if it is a gift he pays (at a very high gift tax rate)...if income, she pays......

you are so far gone it isn't worth discussing....you make Summerhill seem rational..... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Always nice be be insulted when I'm not even participating in a thread. Thanks alt, good to feel welcome.

As for the house -- it is either income or a gift....if it is a gift he pays (at a very high gift tax rate)...if income, she pays...... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Depends how good a SD he is.

The thing I'm picking up here and that I don't understand is that it appears that the SD owns the SB. That is not the way I would be. Correct me if I'm wrong. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

When I was a SB, I actually felt like I was the one with the upper hand, although that wasn't my intention. However, my SD also became attached to me fairly quickly, definitely quicker than I did to him. That definitely shook the dynamics up. Of course, this is a prime example of YMMV.

I can see the SD "owning" the SB if she is completely reliant on him financially and/or there's not enough genuine feelings and chemistry between them. That sounds like a horrible situation to be in though. . . to be at the beck and call of someone you don't even really like.

Always nice be be insulted when I'm not even participating in a thread. Thanks alt, good to feel welcome. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

apologies Lauren. that was rough

apologies Lauren. that was rough Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Old habits die hard? No worries, I'll survive. Good news is I'm a submissive and can be a sucker for suffering.

I am in Vegas there is a Chapel on every corner, let me know when you are arriving I will send a limo Originally Posted by NinaMorgan

You are all cordially invited to the latest and greatest SD/SB union the would has ever seen! My I suggest the ladirs wear tux's and the men supply diamonds!

Syd and Atl will give us away to Elvis singing Yellow Rose of Texas.

I tried to be a SD once, she was'nt interested, I got shot down mid air, lol.

The thing I'm picking up here and that I don't understand is that it appears that the SD owns the SB. That is not the way I would be. Correct me if I'm wrong. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

I can see the SD "owning" the SB if she is completely reliant on him financially and/or there's not enough genuine feelings and chemistry between them. That sounds like a horrible situation to be in though. . . to be at the beck and call of someone you don't even really like. Originally Posted by Eliza

I don't think a SB would be "owned" by her SD because she relies on him as her exclusive means of support. Last I heard, slavery's been abolished. A SB chooses whether to rely on her SD as her sole means of support. If she doesn't want that, she can get a job, or a second SD. You know, people have that free will thang. Most people have one employer, but they wouldn't consider themselves "owned" by who they work for because they can always quit and get another job.

I've had six long-term SBs, and each one either worked full-time, went to school part-time and worked part-time, or went to school full-time. I don't think I'd be interested in a girl who didn't work or go to school because she probably wouldn't be a very interesting person. Certainly she wouldn't be very ambitious.

Interesting discussion. Guys pondering being a SD might check out this thread:

[ame="http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=9404"]Shyster John's "So you think you want a sugar baby? - ECCIE - Your source for escort reviews[/ame]

I have given it some thought as well. Although I would never know how to enter into such an arrangement nor how to be in the right place at the right time. Being a SB seems to have many positive qualities and few negative ones.

Never had one, and doubt I ever will. Not rich enough. But if I had one, I would expect/hope that when I called she would be available. Now I understand that of she were out for drinks with friends, I would just have to be enough of a gentleman to understand that it wasn't a good time for her. I could live with that, unless I had called her at 2 pm and said it looked like I could be available later that night and I would call. If she went out with friends anyway, that would make me feel as if I was being used and disrespected. While I might "know" I am being used, I certainly wouldn't want to feel that way.

I am very new to this. One of the issues I am battling with within myself is the fact that I am "using" someone's financial need to fulfill my intimacy/sexual/fantasy needs. I don't like the feeling that I am using or taking advantage of someone. Would it feel less so if I had a SB? I suspect it would--maybe.

I guess there are varying degrees of SBs. There are the jet-setting ones, who travel and dine with their gents. Then I suppose an UTR lady who only saw one--or just a couple per month gents-might fall into that category. I've read a few posts on UTRs, but if they are under the radar I am unclear on how they get found.

That's what I would prefer. I don't like the idea of seeing a lady who sees many men per day--just seems way too impersonal. Exclusivity wouldn't matter to me, nor being on call 24/7. We'd get together when we could. I would feel as if we somehow became more than two ships passing in the night over time and would like helping one improve their financial status a bit. I don't know--more and more this "hobby" is seeming like a bad fit for me. But I love reading all this stuff. Sheeyat, I am rambling in a pointless direction. Time to quit flapping my gums.

For the record, two who are having a bit of a spat here--ATL and one of the ladies--I took his quote about "requiring that she work" to mean he would prefer that he wasn't her only source of financial support. His "requirement" could have been his own--not specifically making someone work. That's how I saw it, and that is how comments can be misconstrued, even when directly quoted. Surely the lady can see that?