Hey, We Are Not Hookers!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...older-men.html

Talk about dillusional.

Honey, there is one sure fire way to answer this question. Let the old man who wants to fuck you do it for free. No financial gain, no gifts, just "love".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...older-men.html

Talk about dillusional.

Honey, there is one sure fire way to answer this question. Let the old man who wants to fuck you do it for free. No financial gain, no gifts, just "love". Originally Posted by Jackie S

Never been a SD or had a SB. You are describing a hooker as any lady who will doesn't open her legs for free is a hooker. Really? Then any lady who ever loved her boyfriend is a hooker! Any woman who ever married or moved in with a guy ( might even be for some form of security and stability) is a hooker!
Seems like guys think one of two ways. I look, I like, I want and you put out (which makes you not a hooker). Or I look, I like, I want and you don't put out (which makes you a bitch). No wonder many women understand that and expect something from you before putting out. I think someone's a little jealous.

Yeah, I'm not reading this. This article lost all credibility when they spelled "female" as "femail" in the title.

But nevertheless, let's put and end to this now.

First, many SDs and SBs do love each other, or at least have extreme affection for each other.

Second, your definition of prostitute is so broad that it includes the vast majority of all traditional relationships and is de facto reduced to being meaningless because everyone in a relationship is a whore. There are generally always gifts going back and forth in any relationship, sugar or otherwise. As professor Ogden of UVa's French Department is well known for saying, "Housewives are just hookers for appliances." If you really believe that money and gifts are what make a prostitute, then start turning away your SO's birthday gifts, and don't buy him one either, lest you turn him into a man-whore! Then you can split the rent right down the middle and not share bank accounts to avoid spending your SO's money. The line is NOT gifts. You have accepted several gifts from you SO I bet. I'm sure you fucked his brains out for particularly good gifts as well. Does that make you a whore?

It's not black and white, or at least if it is black and white, money is not the sole defining characteristic.

I can also tell you this is very much a legal gray area. Prostitution is exchanging sex for money. If you meet your SB twice a week and just fuck and pay her, sure that's proposition that you're calling a sugar arrangement. But if you have a genuine relationship, go to movies, out to dinner, meet each other's families, and fuck on top of all of that, then you're doing a lot more than just sex, and it gets really gray really fast. Different statutes in different states may define 'prostitution' differently, but depending on the precise wording, specifically whether the language is open or closed, etc, 'prostitution' can have many different scopes. As you have just demonstrated, a broad interpretation of prostitution can quickly get reduced to absurd scopes that catch many if not most or even all traditional relationship. A narrow interpretation would not include sugar relationships because under the standard that they are genuine relationships and not a simple exchange of sex for money.

Why is the legality of sugar arrangements still a gray area? Because the police and state attorneys don't care enough to spend the money to find out if its legal in the court's eyes. Prostitution was criminalized primarily to try to prevent human trafficking, not just to control people. Obviously that didn't work: its still a problem. However, sugar arrangements do not threaten increasing human trafficking: if anything it decreases it because would be johns fuck their SBs instead of prostitutes. One day the courts will weight in on this, but it will be quite easy for a seasoned attorney to really restrict the courts interpretation of "prostitution" to a reasonable scope using a similar argument to the above.

My point is that your interpretation of prostitute is a little too broad. Reign it in there.

If you give a woman monetary compensation so that you can have sex with her, you are a Trick, John, Mark, Hobbyist, etc.
If a woman has sex with you so that you will reward her monetarily, she is a Hooker, Whore, Prostitute, Provider, etc.

If you are in a SB/SD "relationship", the fact is you are probably paying her Boyfriend's rent.

Did anyone else notice this part of the article...
"One sugar baby revealed that she actually plans to marry her sugar daddy; Erin Oden, a 29-year-old magician's assistant from Dallas, Texas, who has dated 50 of them, says she 'fell in love' with her first sugar daddy,"

So.. she "falls in love" with her first.. but goes on to date 50 others.. and NOW she's coming back to marry the first one?

So.. show of hands.. who says she's a hooker? and who says she's actually an SB?

Yeah...I have a feeling once that article was published her SD dropped her like a hot coal...Most SD prefer being your only one.

The thing that struck me the most about that article is that these girls seem to have no idea how.....involved a provider can get with a client. I have a friend I'm constantly in contact with and our sleepovers are less about sex and more about how well we catch Z's together. I have a friend whose company I just enjoy and we sometimes we just sit and talk until we are too tired to play and no money is exchanged even though he offers. Another that most of our time together we sit and watch TV and comment on whatever is on.......etc. etc.

I'm sure all the other ladies have similar relationships with clients. It's my responsibility to take care of your body, heart, and mind while we are together.

There are generally always gifts going back and forth in any relationship, sugar or otherwise. Originally Posted by sketchball82

I think the key words are "back and forth." If she has never given a non-sexual gift (a card from the dollar store doesn't count), if she's never offered to "go Dutch" (one doesn't have to accept the offer), then the SB thing is just glorified prostitution.

I once had a boyfriend who either took me shopping or gave me cash nearly every time we had sex. It wasn't overly obvious and it took me a bit to make the conection, however, we lived together and were exclusive for 2 years. He had done the same with his wife of many years before me. It was never an arrangement per say, nothing I asked for, however I was still being compensated for sex as was his ex-wife. So, were we hookers as well? And to complicate things more, I sometimes give my clients gifts.. So does that make me not an escort? I care very little about the answer as it pertains to me personally, just thought I'd contribute my scenario as food for thought...

These are the type of threads that make eccie priceless

Truly thought provoking opinions from a lot of different folks who I am quite sure all have very diverse backgrounds (and current situations)

hmmm, When I was in the service in Japan (happened again when out of service with someone else), I was with a woman that wouldn't let me spend money on her and she would let me stay with her whenever I was around, she bought everything for me (gifts?), paid for dinners when we went out, etc. She even traveled to a couple other countries that the ship was at so that she could spend time with me. She was also always wanting sex. So was I a SB or prostitute or just real lucky?

Personally I never understood why they would do that for/with me, but back then, I was a lot more in shape, more confident, always treated them with respect (as I do now) and could get hard and stay hard as long as there was a girl within eyesight or if I could smell her and it wouldn't go down until they couldn't take it any more. And no, I am not well endowed, just average.

I once had a boyfriend who either took me shopping or gave me cash nearly every time we had sex. It wasn't overly obvious and it took me a bit to make the conection, however, we lived together and were exclusive for 2 years. He had done the same with his wife of many years before me. It was never an arrangement per say, nothing I asked for, however I was still being compensated for sex as was his ex-wife. So, were we hookers as well? And to complicate things more, I sometimes give my clients gifts.. So does that make me not an escort? I care very little about the answer as it pertains to me personally, just thought I'd contribute my scenario as food for thought... Originally Posted by VegasJen

Sounds like your friend had a p4p mentality. One thing about these SB/SD things that I've noticed is that the SB, SD, or both are seeking an arrangement. Honestly, what you've described sounds hooker-ish to me, but I understand GFs/BFs can get into weird patterns. I think that pattern is more overt with the SB/SD thing, at least to one party in the "relationship."

Gifts to clients. That's great, but he's still a client. I'll leave it at that.

I think the key words are "back and forth." If she has never given a non-sexual gift (a card from the dollar store doesn't count), if she's never offered to "go Dutch" (one doesn't have to accept the offer), then the SB thing is just glorified prostitution. Originally Posted by emptywallet

So everyone's great grandmother that stayed at home cleaning while the man worked were whores?

Further by this definition, if a hooker gives you a coke on the way out it retrospectively wasn't prostitution.

So was I a SB or prostitute or just real lucky? Originally Posted by skbinks

Yes, to all three.

While I'm here, I don't have anything against SBs or prostitutes. I understand that SBs do not share all of the attributes of prostitutes. However, I cannot agree with those who try to convince us that they are completely different.

If you give a woman monetary compensation so that you can have sex with her, you are a Trick, John, Mark, Hobbyist, etc.
If a woman has sex with you so that you will reward her monetarily, she is a Hooker, Whore, Prostitute, Provider, etc.

If you are in a SB/SD "relationship", the fact is you are probably paying her Boyfriend's rent. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Again you need to add wife, GF, and SO to that list. I mean what woman has not rewarded her man with sex before (fucking him hard after getting that necklace she wanted)? Where is the line? You have yet to explain how a GF/BF relationship is any different than P4P. You just keep repeating yourself like Hodor from Game of Thrones. I mean I understand the assuming the conclusion logical fallacy, but I'm kind of hoping you eventually use logic to explain it instead of just repeating your conclusion.

If your definition is that prostitution is ONLY sex for money, I agree. But sugar arrangements are real relationships and therefore NOT only sex for money. Obviously I'm not talking about calling prostitution sugar just to be safe. I mean, real arrangements. Hell, some legit arrangements don't even involve sex... not mine mind you. My SB and I fuck like rabbits.

... and Hodor.

So everyone's great grandmother that stayed at home cleaning while the man worked were whores? Originally Posted by sketchball82

Nope. Grandpa and Grandma are maintaining the home as partners. Where she works is not the issue. They are having sex as equals. Neither is paying for it.

Further by this definition, if a hooker gives you a coke on the way out it retrospectively wasn't prostitution. Originally Posted by sketchball82

Nope. That would probably count about the same as a dollar store card. We can nit-pick over details, but your point is it's a back-and-forth thing. My point is that if the SD part is disproportionately money (or costs money) and the SB part is disproportionately sex, it's p4p.