When materialism goes horribly wrong

DG, that is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Why would any man think that paying 700.00 more would be much better? Originally Posted by Ansley

I forgot to add

Dear Lina,

What was the demarcation from boyfriend/girlfriend to SD/SB? By description it reads as a simple BF/GF with the BF having more liquidity. To me that's a real world relationship. All IMO.

What happened to this BF (if you don't mind me/us asking and if you'd rather not post we understand)? Originally Posted by SR Only

From start we both knew that due to personal situation the relationship was limited and that at certain point he would have to return to Europe where he had family.

So that made it SD/SB as opposed to conventional dating where one party has greater financial resourses.

Lina

From start we both knew that due to personal situation the relationship was limited and that at certain point he would have to return to Europe where he had family.

So that made it SD/SB as opposed to conventional dating where one party has greater financial resourses.

Lina Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

With the disclaimer that it is tough to tell the real situation/nature of the relationship from a couple of paragraphs...but...

I have to side with SRO on this. I've had a number of civie relationships where we both knew things weren't (potentially) moving towards something more permanent, but never considered any of them SBs or kept women even if I treated them to nice things. We were just practical adults living in the moment and enjoying our time together.

Well, speaking in terms of pure functionality, does the 3k watch do anything that my $30 watch doesn't, other than impressing members of the opposite sex? Originally Posted by WorknMan

Buying a masterful watch to do the same thing your digital does is like buying rare $1000 bottle of scotch just to get drunk. If you can't appreciate quality and craftsmanship and process, you're doing the world a favor by buying a $30 scotch (or $30 watch).

The mechanics behind a watch that has NO modern digital technology and made entirely of hand crafted moving pieces speaks of human ingenuity at it's finest. It's one of the oldest human inventions, and the ability to create one of the oldest human inventions without leaning on the fragility and ease of computerized technology, but being a purist using only physical machinery that can tell time perfectly - second, hour, month, year, with incredible precision is fantastically brilliant. The gearing is no small laughing matter, it takes incredible work to create these pieces of technological art.

I appreciate that you may not care for the science behind a non-digital watch, but that doesn't mean it's a "waste". That's like saying understanding how to do complex mathematics with nothing but a pen and paper is a waste because we have calculators. It's missing the point entirely.

... does the 3k watch do anything that my $30 watch doesn't, ... Originally Posted by WorknMan

Yes, it does. It allows an ex-wife to obtain $3K more in liquid assets because, "let the bastard have the watch..."

Buying a masterful watch to do the same thing your digital does is like buying rare $1000 bottle of scotch just to get drunk. If you can't appreciate quality and craftsmanship and process, you're doing the world a favor by buying a $30 scotch (or $30 watch).

The mechanics behind a watch that has NO modern digital technology and made entirely of hand crafted moving pieces speaks of human ingenuity at it's finest. It's one of the oldest human inventions, and the ability to create one of the oldest human inventions without leaning on the fragility and ease of computerized technology, but being a purist using only physical machinery that can tell time perfectly - second, hour, month, year, with incredible precision is fantastically brilliant. The gearing is no small laughing matter, it takes incredible work to create these pieces of technological art.

I appreciate that you may not care for the science behind a non-digital watch, but that doesn't mean it's a "waste". That's like saying understanding how to do complex mathematics with nothing but a pen and paper is a waste because we have calculators. It's missing the point entirely. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Nicely stated, Lauren. I want to add one other point which seems to be missed entirely so far: Professional Appearance/Marketing. In my line of work as a consultant, when I meet with a client I am marketing myself. The client wants to know (subconciously and instantly) that I am good at what I do. My appearance MUST convey the right image immediately, which includes the appearance of financial success. So the little things like shoes, jewelry, clothing, etc are the only way I get a chance to make my skills apparent. If the first impression goes awry, no amount of sales pitch will get me the business, and thus the neccessities of life Charles alluded to.

For me, having a $3500 Tag watch, $2000 Pal Zileri suits, $350 Seven-Fold ties, etc is a cost of doing business. And anyone who doesn't realize these things is unlikely to ever have the income to afford them, in my experience. One does not buy the expensive things because one can afford them, one can afford and appreciate them because they understand and utilize the value in them.

And anyone who has driven a 750Li KNOWS why they are so much more expensive than a Lincoln, Caddy or Infinti.

Hmm, is this like the discussion about why anyone would book a lady who charges 1000hr instead of a lady who charges 300hr ? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Not at all! If one is concerned only about functionality and doesn't want to pay for a luxury good or service (based on a subjective valuation of the quality of the experience, or aesthetic content), this is like the discussion about why anyone would book a lady, whether she charges $1000 or $300, rather than just spending $10 for lotion, Kleenex, and Penthouse. After all, the latter will achieve the same final result (ejaculation), won't it?

Of course, most people are willing to pay for more than the bare functionality for some things, whether it's going to a nice restaurant rather than McDonalds (both provide nourishment), or buying a $150 bottle of wine rather than a $3 bottle (both will intoxicate), or buying a $250,000 home instead of a $35,000 one (both provide shelter from the elements), etc. We just argue with others because the goods/services for which we pay extra for luxury are totally appropriate, while the goods/services for which we don't but they pay extra for luxury, well, that's just silly!

Nicely stated, Lauren. I want to add one other point which seems to be missed entirely so far: Professional Appearance/Marketing. In my line of work as a consultant, when I meet with a client I am marketing myself. The client wants to know (subconciously and instantly) that I am good at what I do. My appearance MUST convey the right image immediately, which includes the appearance of financial success. So the little things like shoes, jewelry, clothing, etc are the only way I get a chance to make my skills apparent. If the first impression goes awry, no amount of sales pitch will get me the business, and thus the neccessities of life Charles alluded to.

For me, having a $3500 Tag watch, $2000 Pal Zileri suits, $350 Seven-Fold ties, etc is a cost of doing business. And anyone who doesn't realize these things is unlikely to ever have the income to afford them, in my experience. One does not buy the expensive things because one can afford them, one can afford and appreciate them because they understand and utilize the value in them.

And anyone who has driven a 750Li KNOWS why they are so much more expensive than a Lincoln, Caddy or Infinti. Originally Posted by topguntex

There is also something to be said for situational awareness and appropriateness.

The other thing that the last couple of years have taught a lot of people (from all tax brackets) is that you literally can't judge a book by its cover. The guy that wears the fancy suit or watch may be broke. The 750Li that pulls up may well be owned by the bank.

As an aside, some of the best advice I ever got when I was in school and about to start a professional career was, "Be aware of your appearance and know that others will judge you as a result (implication: take care of yourself, dress well), but conversely try not to judge others based on their appearance otherwise you will miss out on some tremendous opportunities."

Well, speaking in terms of pure functionality, does the 3k watch do anything that my $30 watch doesn't, other than impressing members of the opposite sex? The watch itself is about three years old, and I've never had any problems with it keeping time or anything. So, it does everything I need it to do at 1% of the cost of the $3,000 alternative. And when the battery dies, I just pay $5 for a new one, and I'm good to go.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, even if I were as rich as Bill Gates, I still couldn't see myself paying that much for a watch, except maybe to get one with a heart rate monitor or something so that I could use it while jogging, or whatever. I'm sure if the 3k watch was hand made or whatever, it's probably an impressive piece of craftsmanship. But if it doesn't do anything that my current watch does, it's a waste of money, IMHO. Originally Posted by WorknMan

You are right, a $30 watch works just as well as a $K watch. What seems important to you is functionality with a reasonable price. Isn't it a bit like Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs? Once you have your basic needs taken care of, you "graduate" to more refined needs, then to satisfying your "wants" and desires.

And anyone who has driven a 750Li KNOWS why they are so much more expensive than a Lincoln, Caddy or Infinti. Originally Posted by topguntex

Up until the Nikasil linings in the engine cylinders fail (I know car guy geek talk).

You are right, a $30 watch works just as well as a $K watch. What seems important to you is functionality with a reasonable price. Isn't it a bit like Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs? Once you have your basic needs taken care of, you "graduate" to more refined needs, then to satisfying your "wants" and desires.

Originally Posted by Egrbvr

I thought of Maslow yesterday as I first read this thread. I think that Maslow is generally on the right track. However, I would argue that there are many "individuals" who do not fit into the hierarchy.

Some, who are operating at the esteem level on Maslow hierarchical scale, might wear a $3K watch to enhance their self-esteem or improve their position in their peerage group. Others can achieve self-actualization without such ostentatious tokens. For example, despite the cash award she received with the Nobel Peace prize, Mother Teresa didn’t spend any of it on an expensive watch for herself. Yet, she had the respect of others, and she was creatively involved in problem solving at the self-actualization level. Conversely, the Menendez Brothers and the Billionaires Boys’ Club members—who also had the money and the *bling*— committed crimes that Maslow would associate with men who were struggling at the physiological or safety levels on his hierarchical scale.

I could afford to buy a $3K watch, but it’s not for me. If I wore such a watch, I would—on a dark, desolate night—feel less safe walking (stumbling – lol) from a Bourbon Street bar to my hotel room after having a few drinks. So like I said, I think Maslow has it generally right.

Of course, most people are willing to pay for more than the bare functionality for some things, whether it's going to a nice restaurant rather than McDonalds (both provide nourishment), or buying a $150 bottle of wine rather than a $3 bottle (both will intoxicate), or buying a $250,000 home instead of a $35,000 one (both provide shelter from the elements), etc. We just argue with others because the goods/services for which we pay extra for luxury are totally appropriate, while the goods/services for which we don't but they pay extra for luxury, well, that's just silly! Originally Posted by Chevalier

There is a big flaw in your logic, since we're not talking about bare functionality here. Because, as we have already established, the $30 watch actually has much more functionality than the watch that costs 10x the price. So in essence, you're paying a lot more for something that does less. As for the craftsmanship, being impressed by it vs paying out the nose when there are no tangible benefits are two completely different things. As I said, I'm not against buying nice things vs the cheapest thing you can find, as long as it's for a purpose other than, "Hey, look at me!!!" I guess that would include pretty much any type of jewelry, since the majority of that crap is completely useless.

The one guy who brought up appearance and marketing does have a good point; it's just a shame that we have to dress up in silly, ultra-expensive costumes (Halloween only happens once a year, right?) to impress each other, which kind of goes back to my original point.

So in essence, you're paying a lot more for something that does less. Originally Posted by WorknMan

In automotive they call it "Porsche." Or specifically, the Boxster and Cayman. The Cayman is a hardtop version of the Boxster, a convertible. Porsche is the only car company that can charge more for a cheaper and simpler car to build.

There is a big flaw in your logic, since we're not talking about bare functionality here. Because, as we have already established, the $30 watch actually has much more functionality than the watch that costs 10x the price. So in essence, you're paying a lot more for something that does less. As for the craftsmanship, being impressed by it vs paying out the nose when there are no tangible benefits are two completely different things. As I said, I'm not against buying nice things vs the cheapest thing you can find, as long as it's for a purpose other than, "Hey, look at me!!!" I guess that would include pretty much any type of jewelry, since the majority of that crap is completely useless. Originally Posted by WorknMan

No, not a flaw in my logic. I think perhaps you missed my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Your argument quoted above implies that, other than for functionaity or tangible benefits (e.g., being able to resell for a profit), there is no "value" to spending more, other than feeding your vanity by showing off your ability to spend to others.

I reject that premise. There are simply other reasons that may justify spending more. For example, the intangible benefits of an experience or the personal pleasure in surrounding oneself with beauty. After all, people sometimes purchase art without regard to showing it off to others (vanity) or reselling it (tangible benefit), but merely because they enjoy it. And some art is more pleasing to them -- and worth paying more for -- than other. Similarly, what "functionality" or "tangible benefit" is there from going to see a movie? Attending a professional sporting event? Or even, say, a skiing vacation? (Yes, there's functionality in the latter in the sense of exercise, but there are much cheaper ways to exercise.) In some instances, those other values may even outweigh a disadvantage in functionality or tangible benefits.

Yes, people base some purchasing decisions on functionality, or tangible benefit. I do not deny that some purchasing decisions not justified on those bases (such as some of the examples you cite) may in some instances may be based on vanity. But I certainly deny that all purchasing decisions not justified on those bases are a result of vanity.

I also assert that those other tangible benefits vary from person to person. I would not pay $3,000 for a bottle of wine. But I imagine some people would, because: (a) they have a greater appreciation of the "quality" of a fine wine; and (b) have sufficient funds that the value to them of buying the wine outweighs the marginal utility of saving for retirement or giving to charity. On the other hand, some people would not buy season tickets for a professional sports team. I would, because I enjoy it. But I wouldn't pay a like amount on golf, although many others do despite minimal if any functional or tangible benefits. And on and on.

And, unless it affects me somehow or the spending is such that it endangers someone's obtaining the basics (the lower level Maslow needs), I see no particular reason to criticize how someone else spends their money. Their values are different from mine, and their resources may be more than mine, so why should I expect our spending patterns to be similar? And why should I care? To feed my ego by feeling superior to them and pointing out to others how my values are better than theirs? Making fun of people who spend more than I do on X is as much a type of snobbery as is making fun of people who don't spend as much as I do on X. No attraction to me in that. If something has "value" to them, that's what matters; not whether it does or does not have "value" from my perspective. Same reason I don't make fun of people who see ladies with higher rates, even though I might not want to spend that much.

I've been dabbling in the SD/SB thing. Yes, some SBs want the expensive watches or shopping sprees the ones I have been with are much more realistic. They are covering their mortgage/rent, fixing a car, paying for school, etc. The shopping spree girls maybe supplementing their income and that's fine but in this day and age taking care of everyday life seems to be the norm.

So some recent examples.
One SB and I talked and emailed. She had a SD before that had taken care of her nicely, but they had gone separate directions. "In her face" right now is a $2k mortgage payment and she's out of work. She doesn't need a fancy watch. She felt I wasn't going to give her the financials she was in need of (correct). This was two weeks ago.

Monday, a young woman and I had chatted a bit (for a week or two) and opted to meet for coffee. We met. I brought her some roses and I thought we had a nice talk. At one point she says she drove up to Boston to meet a guy, in the first five minutes the guys says this isn't going to work and hands her $500. She was surprised he'd have her go all that distance and not want to continue. At almost one hour her phone alarm goes off and she was concerned with the parking meter. We go out, a quick peck and hug and away she goes. Um okay. A few minutes later she texts me saying we didn't talk financials (well if you hadn't been in such a hurry....) So she tells me she wants $1,100 per meeting. She did thank me for the roses in the text saying our numbers don't match. I texted back if there was a typo. Nope that's the number. I did ask her was I that repulsive and why was I $1.1k and Boston $500 was ok? She said I could find a girl on Craig's for $300. (hmmm, Craig's is closed and I bet I could get two or a doubles for $300 ). My final reply was that I did not know why she was being rude and nasty especially since I had been a gentleman throughout.

That afternoon I have a chat on my SD/SB site with an attractive woman. We go back and forth and get to the "discussion" (about money/fee/rate). She wants $4k. Huh? Twice in one day I'm thinking these girls think their private parts are made of gold. So another pass, "good luck in your search."
) Originally Posted by SR Only

Oh, man. I haven't read this whole thread, but this is why the SB route just isn't for me. It seems like the worst of both worlds: all the most awkward elements of both pay-for-play (financial conversations and assessing the worth of another person's time) and traditional dating (games and expectations that may not be met). The times that I hear of it working out seem few and far between. I've dabbled in it, but from my experience, escorting is far more upfront and comfortable. Then again, if you are lucky enough to meet a sugar baby somewhere other than a sugar baby site, I think it can work out better. A friend of mine who's an exotic dancer has had a few sugar daddies, and rather than seeking them out as sugar daddies, they were either club customers who she happened to get along with really well, or guys she met just out and about in the city. Arrangements have worked out for me when I met the gentleman as a client first, and then we realized we'd both be happier if it evolved into something less formal.