Is gold digging illegal

Maybe once he sees a supermodel and reviews her, he can check it out...

Just curious, are gold diggers breaking the law? If the law is that you can't exchange sex for money, and that is essentially what they are doing - dating a man they have no interest in simply because he has money and/or buys them valuable things.

I'm not talking about real providers, just girls who actively go out trying to date men for their money. It's not uncommon. But I've never heard of anyone being arrested for it. I guess they could use the "but officer I wasn't dating him for his money, I actually just get turned on by 90 year old men even though I'm 25 and look like a supermodel" excuse, but that's just as flimsy as the "paying provider for her time as a donation blahblahblah" excuse for prostitution.

So how is this not something that is prosecuted? Originally Posted by rpimps

Ok.....

I read your post, then scrolled down 2, then decided to say something....

I am guessing you still have your mom buy your undies, and they are 4xxx size.

now I am going to reAD the rest of your thread... I hope I am wrong.

Do keep in mind there is a huge difference between the legal and philosophical aspects of this. A woman may be willing to give it up only because he is taking care of her. At a certain level may be the difference between her and a prostitute is small. But the legal issues are vastly different.

Do keep in mind there is a huge difference between the legal and philosophical aspects of this. A woman may be willing to give it up only because he is taking care of her. At a certain level may be the difference between her and a prostitute is small. But the legal issues are vastly different.

Sugar-babies and gold-diggers are prostitutes all the same, but they take more work to catch, plus the ones who can afford such lifestyles tend to be the very rich who also happen to be (or be able to buy) the people making the laws.

You will never see SBs getting it from the po-po like a street provider....BUT!

When the SB gets older and the looks start to go, if they haven't invested wisely and/or gotten some real work experience, their SD is going to drop them like a rock and be on to the next one, and they will be looking at becoming yet another street ho because they have no other capital or marketable skills.

It's like the majority of athletes: they get paid a ton of money for their physical attributes, only to learn that nothing lasts forever, and oops, now I'm broke with 50 kids to support and 12 different stds.

Interesting- I'm in no way a SB- and I see men older and less attractive than me (teeth out and all) in a non professional way. There's a saying- If someone feels appreciated they will do more than necessary. These gents might just appreciate the SB's in a whole different way. and yeah they do it for the money, and being appreciated is pretty cool too.

Your question has already been answered in this thread. You may not agree with the answer, but the answer is there. Sex with a prostitute involves a discrete (that is, separate or distinct) pay for play transaction, often between people who just met. The provider hangs up her figurative shingle, inviting all comers as long as they pass her screening and pay her fee, which is based on the duration of the encounter. The provider may see dozens of hobbyists in a given month.

By contrast, a sugar daddy and a sugar baby may do many things other than fuck, like go to museums, plays, concerts, restaurants, shopping, etc. The SD pays for these things. In addition, the SD may give his SB an allowance, often in advance once the relationship has developed. The SD may also pay for his SB's rent, car payment, medical care, etc. There is a certain degree of exclusivity in the relationship -- that is, the SB may only play with her SD, or maybe only her bf and her SD. SBs usually have jobs or go to school or both. Often, a SD may have to have multiple dates with the SB before she'll let him steal the pootie.

Here's an example to illustrate the point: I saw my SB the other day. Once we were alone, I tried to make a move. But the little monkey said she wasn't in the mood because she failed her sociology test. My reaction: 'Oh, well. Better luck next time.' Imagine that reaction with a provider.

The bottom line is the two types of relationships are VERY, VERY different. Most providers would never consider being a SB because their volume business results in large amounts of cash, which many use for things like supporting their lameass bf's and for entertaining substances. SBs, on the other hand, use their allowance for things like tuition and books.

btw, you have an odd view of SDs and SBs, maybe based on watching too many movies. In reality, most SBs are just normal girls trying to build a better life. Anna Nichol Smiths are few and far between. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Thank you
People just don't get it.

Sugar-babies and gold-diggers are prostitutes all the same, but they take more work to catch, plus the ones who can afford such lifestyles tend to be the very rich who also happen to be (or be able to buy) the people making the laws. Originally Posted by fragtasticator

I don't agree with any of that at all. SBs aren't providers, and providers aren't SBs. Also, a SD doesn't have to be rich to have a SB. There are SBs who expect allowance in every price range. Heck, the redhead to my left is perfectly satisfied with $150 for an overnight.

When the SB gets older and the looks start to go, if they haven't invested wisely and/or gotten some real work experience, their SD is going to drop them like a rock and be on to the next one, and they will be looking at becoming yet another street ho because they have no other capital or marketable skills.

It's like the majority of athletes: they get paid a ton of money for their physical attributes, only to learn that nothing lasts forever, and oops, now I'm broke with 50 kids to support and 12 different stds. Originally Posted by fragtasticator

What fucking cheap novel did you get all THAT from? Haha. I've never had a 'professional SB.' My SBs have all been 17 to 25, intelligent coeds on their way to a degree and a career. I see them for 18 months to three years, and they move along, as I do.

That's exactly what I'm referring to though. I'm not trying to sound like a shallow asshole, but let's be honest if a 20 year old girl who looks like a VS model is dating an unattractive guy who happens to be extremely rich, it's pretty obvious she's with him for his money. Does the "fee" have to pertain to a single specific act of sex or just any general relation? The gold digger might not be getting a fee for each specific time they have sex, but she is certainly getting that fee at some point in the relationship either in the form of cash or a credit card or a thousand dollar Gucci bag that she can exchange for cash, etc. If the fee has to be associated with a specific sexual act then why does the "that provider isn't being paid for sex, she's being paid for her time" excuse not fly? It's essentially the same thing. I'm getting the impression that the law just twists itself to prosecute the people it wants to prosecute and ignores others based on what's culturally acceptable rather than what is actually written in the law. Originally Posted by rpimps

You are catching on nicely, grasshopper. It is culturally acceptable to marry for money and fuck as an obligation, but not fuck for money on an ad hoc basis with numerous suitors...sad, ain't it?

Sugar-babies and gold-diggers are prostitutes all the same, but they take more work to catch, plus the ones who can afford such lifestyles tend to be the very rich who also happen to be (or be able to buy) the people making the laws.

You will never see SBs getting it from the po-po like a street provider....BUT!

When the SB gets older and the looks start to go, if they haven't invested wisely and/or gotten some real work experience, their SD is going to drop them like a rock and be on to the next one, and they will be looking at becoming yet another street ho because they have no other capital or marketable skills.

It's like the majority of athletes: they get paid a ton of money for their physical attributes, only to learn that nothing lasts forever, and oops, now I'm broke with 50 kids to support and 12 different stds. Originally Posted by fragtasticator

I don't know what world you live in but it looks nothing like the one I occupy. That doesn't describe the kept women/sugar babies/mistresses/etc I know, nor the guys who provide for them. I am sure the examples you describe exist but you seriously overgeneralize.

Shyster John, Old T, like every thing else, YMMV.

What one experiences, another may not.

First things first though: if a woman enters into a transactional relationship, one where she trades something of value in return for sexual intercourse, regardless of the time scale the transaction takes place over and regardless of what the medium of exchange is, then, technically, by definition, she is a prostitute, who is, lest we forget: "a person, typically a woman, who engages in sexual activity for payment."

Don't fool yourselves; when you go see that girl you know and she lets you do what you like in order to keep a roof over her head or her lights on or her tuition paid and not purely because she is emotionally attached, it's prostitution, at least by the dictionary definition of the term.

(and yes, I've seen marriages that would fit this definition as well).

I should point out that Shyster John represents himself as a lawyer (I don't know if he is, but, if it's true, he can expect to make 6 figures annually, and is therefore pretty squarely in the top 10% of earners in the US), which would, fairly I think, qualify him as a member of the rich.

He self discloses that he keeps a side piece that runs him $150 a 'visit'.

He makes comment that it is his habit to find college girls and help support them through college in such a manner, stating that after three years, both parties move on, no strings attached.

Strictly by dictionary definition, his relationship would seem to qualify as prostitution, as it involves a sexual relationship that is transactional in nature with no lasting emotional ties to speak of.

This is great, probably very smart, safer all around, especially if the two are mutually exclusive and nobody posts any photos on the internet, and I am, in general, very envious of Shyster John's awesomeness (Teach me, Oh master!).

However, it is still, by definition, prostitution.

As for the the other part of my statement, I have a nasty habit of reading all kinds of reports and articles about things that interest me.

My opinion (and it is just my opinion, nothing to be alarmed about here) is based on the fact that hooking appears to be flat out addictive.

A lot of women who go into the life, statistically, have a very high rate of recidivism - that is to say, when a provider quits the life (as I have seen happen on this very board many times since I have been lurking), it is pretty safe to take the under on a return of said provider before too long has passed. Hell, people make jokes about it in the goodbye threads around here.

Why? Well, my guess is, in short, working for someone else and punching a clock really sucks balls. More so than actually sucking balls, apparently.

Being a hooker is fast money, and when you are young and pretty, it's kind of like an ATM - there's always another customer willing to pay untaxable, untraceable cash for the chance to huff, puff and groan a bit.

Notice: I didn't say it was easy. It's risky, dangerous work that I imagine could be very unpleasant at times, especially with new, unknown customers.

When that first paycheck comes in after going into a 'normal' life of 9-5 for a mid-range starting salary, Jane Doe might be thinking "I gave up hooking for THIS?" It'd be natural. Completely understandable.

As a hooker, or a sugar baby, your schedule is a lot freer than say, someone with a 40-60 hr work week. You spend a couple of hours here and there with your customer, and the rest of the week is yours to do with what you will (such as study and attend class, even).

Generally speaking, if you aren't feeling too well, there is no penalty for taking time to get better, other than lost income (SB is actually better here, as income would conceivably still come in while sick)....

You never ever have to pay taxes or see deductions out of your check.

Of course, this is ASSUMING that the provider in question a) has a self-improvement plan and b) sticks to it.

Young people, in general tend to assume that they are invincible and that the good times will last forever. Very few have the foresight to plan for the future, and even fewer do it well.

Many fall into the trap of materialism, in that they feel they must buy the best and the brightest, the latest toys and the most popular fashion labels - and even $250/day would disappear quickly when such is your philosophy.


But I know that's not going to be enough for you, so here's a concrete example:

I knew a girl who was a waitress at a strip club - never danced or hooked - but she got involved with a guy who had his own business and started taking care of her. She quit her job, moved into a fancy apartment downtown, financed a land rover and when he burned out he left her with no job, no money and no fallback plan.

Not all john's/sugar daddies give a damn what happens to 'their' girls. Some drop 'em at a moment's notice, because it is strictly a cost/benefit calculation for them.

We have gold diggers and a sugar baby.

If you find that she is sucking your wallet more than your dick, you have yourself a gold digger.

If you screen better and meet them more in person than online you will find out that girls out there like older guys.

I have been seeing a 20 year old for over two years now. It is more of a GF/BF thing now as I don't support her financially now.

I met her at 18 where she worked and now she works for my company (Where I work, I don't own it) and she just got a heads up on the job and a ref from me but she got the job on her own.

I look for someone that wants to get out of the nest and knows they have to fly in order to do it. They just don't know how to fly.

Well, mine is flying and doing it all by herself.

At first it was a sugar relationship. I would give her an allowance and take her to dinner, movies, trips she never would have done... Japan, blah blah..

No hooker would have ever done what she did or experienced what she did. She didn't know what a sugar daddy was and defined it a year after we met by her friend telling her i was a sugar daddy.

So if a sugar daddy doesn't give a shit about the girl then he is not really a sugar daddy as defined by me or the classic definition of one.

If we follow fragtasticator's logic, about 90% of all marriages involves prostitution. One party is providing a service (food, housing, etc) while the other party is providing sexual services. Fuck it, let's just legalize prostitution and stop living in the puritanical Victorian Age.

If we follow fragtasticator's logic, about 90% of all marriages involves prostitution. One party is providing a service (food, housing, etc) while the other party is providing sexual services. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

Many marriages (especially where one spouse does not work) actually DO fit the DICTIONARY definition of the term (i.e. sex for benefits). However there is supposedly an emotional componant that mitigates all this.

However, please note that the DICTIONARY definition of prostitution and the definition of the LEGAL TERM prostitution may not be a match.

Plus, there are marriages where they are true partnerships: both partners earn and contribute as equally as possible to their mutual benefit.

In short, nothing is as cut and dried as we like to think it is.

I am in personally in favor of legalizing prostitution and setting up medical oversight, as well as establishing state licenses (something similar to massage licenses would work, IMHO).

Many people on this site would (probably) agree with me; the assumption is that ROBs, STDs, and LE busts would be less of a threat, and that's all to the good.

But what if the government mandated that, as a part of maintaining your license, you:
a) had to use credit cards, not cash, and pay all associated state and federal taxes
b) could not refuse service to anyone on the basis of race, color or creed, assuming they can prove they do not currently have an STD...
c) Mandated that all agencies or employers would have to provide health insurance for their employees....

Heh. It makes me chuckle just thinking about the new legal bodies they'd have to devise to keep tabs on all that stuff...

...but the stink it would raise!

You are catching on nicely, grasshopper. It is culturally acceptable to marry for money and fuck as an obligation, but not fuck for money on an ad hoc basis with numerous suitors...sad, ain't it? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

This is a nice concise summary of what I was trying to say.

I understand the "there's more to the relationship" and "the girl can choose if she wants to fuck" differences, but both are very subjective and can quickly be refuted:
- More to relationship: if this were a valid defense then the escort defense of "we had dinner first, and then fucked" would be valid, which it generally isn't if busted.
- Girl can choose: not really, because if she chooses not to fuck more than once or twice then the guy is going to leave her pretty fast.

Don't get me wrong, I personally have no interest in the law prosecuting any of these girls and if a guy wants to be with a gold digger or sb then he's more than welcome to do it, but I'm still curious on exactly what exempts these girls from a law that they clearly do seem to fit into.

Or is it simply a case of it still being illegal yet just being much harder to prove?