Now hiring for Sugar Daddy:)

Yep bigv123. Housewifeism, particularly in this day and age, is strictly a form of prostitution IMHO.

ALL these types of relationships is how MUCH of the relationship is dominated by that exchange!! Originally Posted by bigv123

EXACTLY, and that’s what I’ve been saying. But if a woman says it she’s a liar, thief and a manipulative cunt that deserves black eyes.

But, if someone else wants to call y a "true SD/SB relationship" why do you even care?!?! At the end of the day, both of you are ultimately trading sex for money. Originally Posted by bigv123

I’ve said this repeatedly, and everyone from the moderator on down has said I was just WRONG! How dare I think that working girls can be SB’s? How dare I think that SD’s should provide for one hundred percent of most SB’s needs? How dare I consider a man that gave me about $200,000 in gifts, cars and money should be considered a SD?

But, by that same token, don't try and act smug because you think you're not trading money for sex. In 99% of SD/SB cases, you can take ANY element out of the relationship, except one, and it'll continue to work perfectly fine. Stop giving her "life lessons"? No problem. Stop providing that emotionally comforting shoulder to cry on? No problem. You stop her "compensation" or allowance, or whatever your preferred method of payment it...and you're alone my friend! You know it! And, I know it too! Originally Posted by bigv123

And this really is the crux of the matter right here.

So, everyone here take a step back, get over yourselves and stop trying to tell everyone else "how it's supposed to be". Take care of your OWN life and be HAPPY...and we'll all do those things that make US happy as well. You're arguing over syntax for god's sake! *sigh* Originally Posted by bigv123

No, a few of the guys here like JB are arguing over syntax. The others though like woody, Mr. 6 and oktome are arguing over the fact that we all know they are paying or sex and they are having trouble internalizing that. And THIS is the crux of this thread.

Olivia in my mind confirms that escorts cannot be in sb agreement because it is strictly business, so in a way she is agreeing with the guys she is having the most vigorous debate with. Originally Posted by oktome

No, at first it was a discussion about the semantics. Now, we are debating why you and others are so angry that everyone knows you are paying for sex no matter how hard want that to not be true.

I’m still waiting on the answer to my question Mr. Big Spender. Do you actively seek out, being that you’re financially successful, the best female you can attract or do you seek out a fat, ugly, socially questionable and infertile female to a beautiful, fertile and educated woman from the upper classes. We’re seriously still waiting.

Although she also states that everyone sizes each other up and manipulates Originally Posted by oktome

No, you said I’m manipulative because I don’t care to have a hobo for a man and well to do men don’t want fat, ugly women.

Another aspect that has not been discussed is why would a guy spend 4000 a month to see just one escort when he could see 10-20 different ones each month for the same cost Originally Posted by oktome

Sigh…………….because they care about each other. What we’re really saying is boyfriend and girlfriend or boyfriend and mistress. After all this discussion, you still don’t get that?!? You don’t get it’s about two people that have to actually like each other.

I could care less what it is called if I found someone I clicked with, had good sex and it took me away from the grind of everyday life once in awhile Originally Posted by oktome

Finally Something that makes sense coming from you. God damn! You’re tough to get through to.

Olivia, I am not angry at all if you knew me and were sitting next to me as I typed you would see a slight smirk because I enjoy challenging people and the depth of their thoughts, but I don't take myself too serious. I have never given much thought to social standing myself, if I find a woman attractive and then if I like them personally. After that I don't give it much thought. Simply my taste varies greatly and I consider myself fortunate as I have met many cool people because I don't worry about what their pedigree is. Not sure where you got angry just because I challenge things.

And it is the injection of the anger..I thought you were taking the weekend off Olivia.. that is going to get this thread closed the next time I see it.

Olivia, I am not angry at all if you knew me and were sitting next to me as I typed you would see a slight smirk because I enjoy challenging people and the depth of their thoughts, but I don't take myself too serious. I have never given much thought to social standing myself, if I find a woman attractive and then if I like them personally. After that I don't give it much thought. Simply my taste varies greatly and I consider myself fortunate as I have met many cool people because I don't worry about what their pedigree is. Not sure where you got angry just because I challenge things. Originally Posted by oktome

oktome, I'm absolutely not angry either - at all. I am simply challenging you and the others to explain their positions. I never called anyone any names. I never accused anyone of something illegal such as stealing, immoral such as lieing or indecent behaviors such as being manipulative. I simply stated my opinions and then defended my opinions and unfortunately had to defend my character for my troubles. That said, I do believe you when you say you don't take yourself too seriously and you are just having a discussion.

Having said we are discussing and not arguing, I'd love to have the discussion. How can women be money grubbing bitches if there is no quid pro by the other party. The party with the so-called money. It takes two to tango and two to make a trophy wife. You see?

I'm not saying you are a bad person for being the procurer, but neither am I saying the women are bad people for their part in the equation. What I am saying is that ugly, old, infertile, ignorant and socially undesirable is not what men with some change rolling around in their pockets look for in a mate. Conversely, women don't look for hobos in a mate. We are all subject to the same laws of the jungle. We have been socially engineered this way so the union will produce healthy children in the best and most stable environment possible. That's just the way it is.

John, What can I say. Sometimes I change my mind. Sometimes I get bored while my husband runs in to get us a glass of wine at the bar.

In a provider/client "relationship", if you want to call it that, that's ALL there is. There is nothing more. It's money for sex at it's most basic level. Period. In a SD/SB relationship, there's a LOT more going on! But, sex for money is still there whether you want to admit it or not! it may actually not be the defining characteristic of your particular relationship. But, there's a piece in there somewhere when you boil it all down to the fats where it's still just sex for money. Originally Posted by bigv123

Big one of my SBs comes and cleans my house. She stays the night, we get it on, and then she spends 8 hours from the morning on cleaning everything. I laid out $300 for her, and she said, "How much would you pay for a maid?" I say, "$20 an hour", and she takes $160 and says, "I don't want to be given money for sex."

So I call her sugar baby and she calls herself that, and she won't take money for sex. So how is there money for sex going on? Please tell me how you know more about my SB relationship than I do.

I think your comment is really jaded, and I think the hookers have really gotten to you. You are so messed up in the head that you think no woman would fuck your for free. In fact, many if not most women recoil at the thought of being paid for sex.

When I was married, I preferred paying for sex as an insurance policy against women blabbing about our being together. Had I gotten it for free then and there was a misundedrstanding, I was worried that the women might retaliate. So once more it was not pure sex for money. It was money for insurance.

Just to show you how lacking in delusion I am, there is the opposite case. There was a girl I took out how was from a Chevy background and had Cadillac tastes. We got it on a few times and then one day I saw her crying with a tooth ache. She didn't have the money to have it fixed, so I took her to the dentist. It cost a $1000 to fix it, and I paid it. There was no hope of sex that day given she was in so much pain.

I didn't hear from her again for months. One time I texted her a comment about us getting together, and she said, "I'm not having sex with you. My self-esteem is bad enough as it is." (My friends busted my balls about that comment for a while. )

A year goes by, and she contacts me again though. I tell her that I am pissed at how selfish she was. She says she misses me, she was under stress, blah, blah, blah. She asks to come to my place, and I reluctantly say, "OK." She says, "how much?" I tell her that the first three times I see her she shouldn't be given anything because of the stunt she pulled, but I say that I will give her $200. She declines saying that I was rude. I know that she wanted more money.

So I completely disagree with you. In example 1, it was sex for no money, and in #2, it was money for no sex.

It is just because we are on a hooker board that we think #1 never happens and #2 happens all the time, but there is likely much more of #1 going on than #2.

Just checking in for a chuckle. Thanks all!

Carry on ..........

Big one of my SBs comes and cleans my house. She stays the night, we get it on, and then she spends 8 hours from the morning on cleaning everything. I laid out $300 for her, and she said, "How much would you pay for a maid?" I say, "$20 an hour", and she takes $160 and says, "I don't want to be given money for sex."

So I call her sugar baby and she calls herself that, and she won't take money for sex. So how is there money for sex going on? Please tell me how you know more about my SB relationship than I do.

Wow...talk about rationalization. Here, you're paying for TWO things. You got your place cleaned. Did you pick the company that does the best cleaning job? Maybe, maybe not, but you DID pick the one where you knew you'd get laid. Your expectation was that you were getting sex with a side-service. Sorry dude, but you DID pay for sex there. It might have been cheap. She may dig you personally. But, you still paid for sex. Next time...ask her to come over, tell her she not cleaning the place and therefore you're not paying her. She if you still get laid. *Case and Point*

Just to show you how lacking in delusion I am, there is the opposite case. There was a girl I took out how was from a Chevy background and had Cadillac tastes. We got it on a few times and then one day I saw her crying with a tooth ache. She didn't have the money to have it fixed, so I took her to the dentist. It cost a $1000 to fix it, and I paid it. There was no hope of sex that day given she was in so much pain.

I didn't hear from her again for months. One time I texted her a comment about us getting together, and she said, "I'm not having sex with you. My self-esteem is bad enough as it is." (My friends busted my balls about that comment for a while. )

A year goes by, and she contacts me again though. I tell her that I am pissed at how selfish she was. She says she misses me, she was under stress, blah, blah, blah. She asks to come to my place, and I reluctantly say, "OK." She says, "how much?" I tell her that the first three times I see her she shouldn't be given anything because of the stunt she pulled, but I say that I will give her $200. She declines saying that I was rude. I know that she wanted more money.

The fact that you wanted sex from her, tried to get sex from her and didn't doesn't mean the intent wasn't there. You just tried to put some pussy on lay away. Sorry man, you don't get a pass for that. YOU initiated the text months later to get together for sex. So obviously YOU felt she owed you something in return. What is the something she owed you then?!?! Hrmmm???

Stop rationalizing your own behavior and just be honest with yourself. For SURE, no one here is going to judge you! We're all part of the same community! Good grief, you look like an idiot with these paper thin positions.

...

I just find it amusing that these people are putting so much time into this.

You call me angry blah blah blah

Not angry, don't hate women, don' dislike them at all.

I see a bunch of angry whores that want the SB life and never ever have it lol

Pretty woman was a movie "Ladies"

Olivia, I am not angry at all if you knew me and were sitting next to me as I typed you would see a slight smirk because I enjoy challenging people and the depth of their thoughts, but I don't take myself too serious. I have never given much thought to social standing myself, if I find a woman attractive and then if I like them personally. After that I don't give it much thought. Simply my taste varies greatly and I consider myself fortunate as I have met many cool people because I don't worry about what their pedigree is. Not sure where you got angry just because I challenge things. Originally Posted by oktome

Anyone that disagrees with any of these girls are angry or a woman hater. lol

Daddy either held them very close when they were young or not at all.

I say a sugar baby is like a tadpole.

You can only be a sugar baby once and only for a limited time.

That is what some of the ladies (and a few of the guys) are having a hard time with. Can an frog can act like a tadpole? Who would actually think it was a tadpole? Someone that does not know wtf a tadpole is, if you think a baby frog is a tadpole, you might think a hooker can be a sugar baby.

Only folks that have had a true sugar baby understand this, all others are calling a frog a tadpole.

Wow...talk about rationalization. Here, you're paying for TWO things. Originally Posted by bigv123

LOL. I tried to pay for two things: cleaning and sex, and she only took money for cleaning. You are the one rationalizing things by saying every relationship is about money for sex, and I gave two real life examples where it was not.

And you are lecturing me on getting real that I am paying for sex when I was trying to pay for sex? I don't think I am the one who needs to get real.

There are countless other examples where sex for money does not happen. The one that jumps out at me is the loser boyfriend of the stripper. She gives him sex and her money. The man pays her back with acceptance, companionship, and love, albeit a weird version of love.

And you are wrong about the sugar baby who cleans for me. She is an ex-stripper who feels cheap taking money for sex. Hell, she would fuck me just to prove to you wrong. What she is constantly bugging me for is not money but to call her. And you know why? I get her, and she has told me that I am only one of two people that she has ever met in her entire life that does. Someone who gets her is more valuable to her than the hundreds of guys willing to shower her with money. Her desire for money beyond her most basic needs being met is minimal.

And I had another SB who insisted that we always do things with her 5 year old son. I kept wondering why, and I was a little annoyed by it. Truth is that she seemed to care a lot more about my being around her son than getting money from me. I finally confronted about her, and she told me that all the men surrounding her son were drunks, and she wanted him to have a positive male role model.

As for why GY6 was busting people's balls about the semantics with regards to sugar babies, he wants guys to see that a SB relationship is NOT about money for sex and that there are women who give out sex for other things than money. What people don't get about GY6 is that he will tell you flat out that he does pay money to sex for hookers. He knows when it is money for sex and when it is not money for sex... and maybe you don't.

I am not sure this whole all women are hookers notion is respectful to women either. It may make women here feel better temporarily, but there are very few escorts I have met who privately won't say, "I am not going to do this forever."

I said three years ago that the HDH model was dying and given how many threads on SBs are here it is safe to say it is, but the SB model is going away too. Mark Cuban said there are first the innovators then the imitators and then the idiots with any trend, and we are at the idiot phase with SBs. The SB web sites are loaded to the gills with scammers on both sides.

What is going to take its place is the task + sex model. A woman being paid for a task and sex being an add on. Sex will not be the main course like it was but like the free mints after the main meal.

How do I know this? Because I have hired women for the task and implied that sex would be an expectation if I hired them. I was not slapped in the face, but every attractive woman save one accepted the offer right away, and that one was a maybe that turned to a yes. I have skirted having to ask about getting sex + the task by asking the women I have hired if they have friends interested in this model. I am now turning women down for sex + task.

The reason women do this in lieu of sex for money is the money they make can be claimed, and their credit goes up if they have work. They also get the under rated concept of purpose, a reason to get up in the morning, and a sense of belonging. And then there is the pride for some who have been in the sex for money business. The women can show their friends, family, and the world that they have value beyond their sexuality.

Paying for sex then is going to be just as dinosaur like as paying for music. Sure, people pay for good music but the real value today is that producing good music opens doors to other lucrative ventures. And that is what sex will be more and more about: opening doors to other values.

This thread sure has taken some interesting twists and turns.
People seem to be arguing about what is and what isn't a SD/SB relationship. Some of the women here seem to think that a SD cant be a true SD unless he completely supports the SB. Others like G6 seem to think that money for sex has no or minimal place in a SD/SB relationship.

The reality, as in all things lies somewhere in between. IMHO, a SD/SB relationship can be whatever the people in the arrangement want it to be. G6 has some great ideas about SBs but his error is that he seems to think his way is the only way to have such a relationship. I think his arrangement is great, and I am happy for him but there is no way his arrangement would work for me in my situation. I would submit that his SB has morphed into a GF, for better or worse. So I think that his type of SD/SB relationship, while in some ways enviable is relatively rare.

Similarly it is also rare for a SD to entirely pay for all living expenses of his SB. I think some of the ladies here who have expressed interest in being a SB think that this is what it is all about. I'm sure it would be a great deal for them to have all of their expenses taken care of and only have to fuck one guy. I' sure this happens, but is also pretty rare.

And as far as Woody's sex + task model, I gotta say, good luck with that. I am glad that is working for you, but I think it would be pretty dangerous, mixing sex and work. All it would take is for one of those women to file some sort of sexual harassment suit claiming that you hired them and pressured them into having sex with you and you will find that this model can be very, very expensive.

As far as a provider becoming a SB, I certainly think it is possible, but also pretty rare. Unless they can find a SD who is willing to support them in the manner in which they would like to become accustomed, they would have to keep working either in a real job, which some do anyway, or they would have to keep working as a provider. In which case they would not really be a SB, but rather a Provider with a very good regular customer.

As far as a provider becoming a SB, I certainly think it is possible, but also pretty rare.

. Originally Posted by TheDoc

Have you ever seen a frog turn back into a tadpole?

bigv123, I like your post. I like all of it.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I haven't glanced at this thread in the past 48 hours or so, but I really like the perspective you provide here.

I'm just an innocent by-stander here, but, please allow me to inject an outside perspective for a second. The root of the issue is that everyone wants to define a SD/SB relationship THEIR way, and no other. 'I've been doing this for x number of years, so I am the expert and no one else is!' Or, "I've had # number of SDs, so listen to me". No, you're just short-sighted and pompous. Allow me to use an example to display the syntactical problem here.

Let's say that I'm a well-to-do gent that nets about $2.5 mil/year in income from my various sources. Let also say that at the age of 45 I meet a 24 year old recent college graduate who is just incredibly hot. We date, then get married after a short courting period. I buy her a house, a new car, give her a couple credit cards that I pay off each month, and we have sex twice a week and really don't see each other much outside of that...and we LIKE it that way. Sound familiar??

At the end of the day, being a provider, a SB, or just a whore with a marriage license, it's STILL an exchange of sex for money at the very bottom of the ledger. It is, and if you can't admit that you're simply not being rational and are likely in a very defensive state. The DIFFERENCE between ALL these types of relationships is how MUCH of the relationship is dominated by that exchange!!

In a provider/client "relationship", if you want to call it that, that's ALL there is. There is nothing more. It's money for sex at it's most basic level. Period. In a SD/SB relationship, there's a LOT more going on! But, sex for money is still there whether you want to admit it or not! it may actually not be the defining characteristic of your particular relationship. But, there's a piece in there somewhere when you boil it all down to the fats where it's still just sex for money. In the example I just gave, it's obfuscated behind some flimsy rationalization...but it's still in there...working its magic!

The only case where this ISN'T in play is a pure, traditional relationship. And, even then, sometimes it is! So, please come down from your holier-than-thou perch as if your definition is the guideline that everyone should be living by. Everyone defines their OWN relationships according to the details they find important. If you want to call x a "true SD/SB relationship"...fine. But, if someone else wants to call y a "true SD/SB relationship" why do you even care?!?! At the end of the day, both of you are ultimately trading sex for money. You look like idiots arguing over "how much" a part it plays in the relationship...as if that somehow matters. Draw those lines where YOU like. I'll draw my lines where I LIKE.

But, by that same token, don't try and act smug because you think you're not trading money for sex. In 99% of SD/SB cases, you can take ANY element out of the relationship, except one, and it'll continue to work perfectly fine. Stop giving her "life lessons"? No problem. Stop providing that emotionally comforting shoulder to cry on? No problem. You stop her "compensation" or allowance, or whatever your preferred method of payment it...and you're alone my friend! You know it! And, I know it too!

So, everyone here take a step back, get over yourselves and stop trying to tell everyone else "how it's supposed to be". Take care of your OWN life and be HAPPY...and we'll all do those things that make US happy as well. You're arguing over syntax for god's sake! *sigh*

... Originally Posted by bigv123

bigv123, I like your post. I like all of it.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I haven't glanced at this thread in the past 48 hours or so, but I really like the perspective you provide here. Originally Posted by PleasantSurprise

He provides a great perspective to everything....but what a true sugar baby is.

A true sb has not figured out the game. That is wtf makes her so special, she appreciates all that is provided because she has never had that happen before. It can only happen once...

All others are frogs wanting to recapture their tadpole youth.