Sugar daddies?

Discussion of the interplay between maturity, life experience and the acquisition of wisdom reminds me of a great one-liner I heard from a professor decades ago: "When you get your Bachelor's degree, you think you know everything. If you obtain a Master's degree, you realize you didn't know as much as you thought you did, and if you persevere and complete a Ph.D. program, you will eventually conclude that you don't know much of anything at all." And it is so true. If you continue to push the outermost boundaries of your personal horizons, academic or experiential, you will realize the severe limitations of your personal knowledge and the fact that you can pose infinitely more questions than ones for which you possess definitive answers.

I had a sugar baby that was 20 when I met her (I'm significantly older than that).

When we met she was a dancer but she didn't like dancing. She had to dance though because she was attending a very expensive school. Being a server at a restaurant, ect. just would not pay enough.

After getting to know her for a couple of months I offered her a deal. I told her that when I take into account all of the money I spent on door fees, drinks, skipping her turn on stage, meals etc. at the SC, it would cost me less if I just took care of her instead. I told her that she would have to see me two or three times a week. If she did that, I'd have no desire to go to the SCs which would save me money so it was really a mutually beneficial relationship. To this very day she is, by far, the hottest girl I've ever seen, hands down, so I would have spent the entire evening at the SC with her anyway but this way she could keep her clothes on around everyone else and I had her all to myself while we were on a date.

We were both allowed to see other people. I had other girls that I did not have a SD/SB relationship with and she occasionally hooked up with a random girl to "scratch an itch" that I didn't have the equipment for. For the most part we just saw each other though.

We were together for 3 years. Every time we walked into a restaurant or bar, every guy would look at her and their jaws would drop to the floor (half of the women too). Clearly that is a gigantic ego boost for me. When young guys would hit on her at a bar we were at she would tell then in no uncertain terms that she was with me and had no desire to be with a little boy but that maybe she would reconsider when he was all grown up (an even more gigantic ego boost).

We had a blast going dinner, sharing a nice bottle of wine, taking weekend trips out of town, engaging in intelligent conversation about almost any topic. I’d take her shopping and help her with various bills, etc.

And then there were the BCD activities…OMG!! SPECTACULAR!! She was incredible!

We both entered the relationship knowing that it would be over when she finished school. I helped her through university. She helped me through a rough spot in my life. Now she has graduated a prestigious university with two bachelor’s degrees and is starting a spectacular career in another city thanks to my kind attention to her needs and I'm in a much better place in my life as well thanks to her kind attention to my needs. Although the SD/SB part of our relationship is over now we are great friends to this day.

I highly recommend the sugar daddy/sugar baby relationship with the caveat that you get to know each other first to make sure you are compatible.

Ah I do love a happy ending.

Ah I do love a happy ending. Originally Posted by London Rayne

I guess he had the time for it. I don't have the time to hang around strip clubs or be a Sugardaddy. That's why I'm on here.

That's a good point too, and like most I would suspect that would be very difficult for a married man to pull off....the time devoted to it I mean.

I think only really rich guys can be a true sugardaddy. I, personally, would never want to get into that type of relationship. Why should I have to pay for both a SO AND a sugarbaby? I'd be broke in a month The only time I'd consider this type of relationship is if I found myself single again, had the $$$, and wanted to play but not have to deal with the emotional aspects of a real relationship. Either that or do what has been previously suggested-- find a really good ATF.

I had a sugar baby that was 20 when I met her (I'm significantly older than that).

When we met she was a dancer but she didn't like dancing. She had to dance though because she was attending a very expensive school. Being a server at a restaurant, ect. just would not pay enough.

After getting to know her for a couple of months I offered her a deal. I told her that when I take into account all of the money I spent on door fees, drinks, skipping her turn on stage, meals etc. at the SC, it would cost me less if I just took care of her instead. I told her that she would have to see me two or three times a week. If she did that, I'd have no desire to go to the SCs which would save me money so it was really a mutually beneficial relationship. To this very day she is, by far, the hottest girl I've ever seen, hands down, so I would have spent the entire evening at the SC with her anyway but this way she could keep her clothes on around everyone else and I had her all to myself while we were on a date.

We were both allowed to see other people. I had other girls that I did not have a SD/SB relationship with and she occasionally hooked up with a random girl to "scratch an itch" that I didn't have the equipment for. For the most part we just saw each other though.

We were together for 3 years. Every time we walked into a restaurant or bar, every guy would look at her and their jaws would drop to the floor (half of the women too). Clearly that is a gigantic ego boost for me. When young guys would hit on her at a bar we were at she would tell then in no uncertain terms that she was with me and had no desire to be with a little boy but that maybe she would reconsider when he was all grown up (an even more gigantic ego boost).

We had a blast going dinner, sharing a nice bottle of wine, taking weekend trips out of town, engaging in intelligent conversation about almost any topic. I’d take her shopping and help her with various bills, etc.

And then there were the BCD activities…OMG!! SPECTACULAR!! She was incredible!

We both entered the relationship knowing that it would be over when she finished school. I helped her through university. She helped me through a rough spot in my life. Now she has graduated a prestigious university with two bachelor’s degrees and is starting a spectacular career in another city thanks to my kind attention to her needs and I'm in a much better place in my life as well thanks to her kind attention to my needs. Although the SD/SB part of our relationship is over now we are great friends to this day.

I highly recommend the sugar daddy/sugar baby relationship with the caveat that you get to know each other first to make sure you are compatible. Originally Posted by werdster77

Thank you so much for this post. Interesting read.

Cpalmson, one caution about the ATF senario. You must go into it with the knowledge that you are not going to try and change her, and you totally accept that she is a Provider. She is NOT your girlfriend.

You might say now, "that's no problem", but if you spend enough time with someone, and really enjoy it, there is always the possibility that either one of you will start to have feelings that in the end will screw up the whole thing.

I have been with my ATF for well over a year now, and we see each other, (if possible), once a week. My compensation in no way will support Her, so she goes about Her business as if I did not exist. I am fine with this, because I know when she is with me, I get her 100 percent undivided attention.

I am not sure that the ATF thing would work that well for a younger guy. The danger of falling in love is always present, and trust me, that will end in disaster. If you are an older guy like me, with very few responsibilities, and wish to have a totally no strings attached "relationship" with a Lady, I highly recommend the ATF approach. I suspect there are more of us out there than most would amagine.

But then, you have to find a Lady that not only stimulates you BCD, but is a pleasure to be around in other settings. That is not as easy as you might think.

I just am tired of people telling me their wives have medical conditions and whatnot, when the reality is that people are just tired sexually of each other Originally Posted by ninasastri

It's true that what people say and the reality can be very different.

But then - sex you can get anywhere. Originally Posted by ninasastri

I wish!

... And many married people are a bit delusional. Sorry to say. I mean pretending to see escorts because its hurtful for a wife to know the truth?? Sorry, if it is so hurtful then why see escorts in the first place? Because people are selfishly motivated. That is the reason. We want to do stuff and not be taken responsible for it. And probably it would be mor ehurtful if the wife left? Or for the purse? But nevertheless. Its just these "selfless" pretenses that are more shokcing to me than if someone says: "Ok i am a hypocrite, and i do stuff secretely because i am selfish. And that is my right because i PAY for." But i am tired of people without backbone presenting themselves as martyrs to me and as selfless peoople who don^t want to hurt anyone. Hahaha. Originally Posted by ninasastri

Well, I'll give you that, as I said, people may say something different than what is the reality.

Personally, I have no one to cheat on and don't need to be sneeking and certainly don't consider that I am paying for secrecy. But for all I know that is really what it's about for most clients of escorts.

Personally, I have no one to cheat on and don't need to be sneeking and certainly don't consider that I am paying for secrecy. But for all I know that is really what it's about for most clients of escorts. Originally Posted by jceeman

WOW , so you`re a true connossoir?? That is amazing. Why are you in the hobby? Your story sounds interesting. I have to admit if i want "just sex" i^d rather go to a qualified provider myself :-).

Individuality is overrated. There are only so many social constructs a person can fall into. As sociologists found out. SO behaviour of individuals is largely influenced and appointed to a social group they belong too. because if that was not the case you would not be an escort. and benefit from certain social circumstances. Or people would not lie. So there are only SO many outcomes of individiuality. Most of them are predictable. With generalizations. Who might fit not 100% but mostly. Its almost predictable what will happen when a married man tells the wife he has a lover. Its predictable what will happen if a cheater cheated once. Its very much socially conditioned. Its predictably how you react, when someone cheats on you (except you are poly) . Its predictable how you define your escort being within the "regular" world.
There are not so many individuals out there who are really "Individual". However , mayn claim to be special though. But most of us are just ordinary. :-) Sad but true. We are not Mahatma Gandhis, or Nobel prize winners. Originally Posted by ninasastri

Don't make me refer you to my statistics thread. You're misusing the correlative data. I'm not going to bore people by getting into this with you, but to say that people's actions are caused by what social group they are in is just plain wrong. I'm not trying to be mean.

Also, generalizations are NOT NOT NOT "for the most part true." That's not the way it works. Generalizations refer to tendencies. This is what it seems you think you can state from generalizations:

Premise: Group A is more likely to commit an action than Group B.
Logical conclusion: Group A will more often than not commit the action.

Instead, I implore you to remember that when you don't know the numbers, you don't extrapolate these conclusions. The premise could really just be referring to the fact that 15% of people in Group A will perform said action while 10% of people in Group B will perform said action. This is what a lot of generalizations boil down to, and misuse of these data leads to grossly misled ideas.

I am psychologist and i guarantee you that kids suffer also when they are in a loveless marriage. Originally Posted by ninasastri

You have a PhD in psychology? Good. You can look back to your old statistics and research methods books to confirm my words.

Don't make me refer you to my statistics thread. You're misusing the correlative data. I'm not going to bore people by getting into this with you, but to say that people's actions are caused by what social group they are in is just plain wrong. I'm not trying to be mean.

Also, generalizations are NOT NOT NOT "for the most part true." That's not the way it works. Generalizations refer to tendencies. This is what it seems you think you can state from generalizations:

Premise: Group A is more likely to commit an action than Group B.
Logical conclusion: Group A will more often than not commit the action.

Instead, I implore you to remember that when you don't know the numbers, you don't extrapolate these conclusions. The premise could really just be referring to the fact that 15% of people in Group A will perform said action while 10% of people in Group B will perform said action. This is what a lot of generalizations boil down to, and misuse of these data leads to grossly misled ideas.



You have a PhD in psychology? Good. You can look back to your old statistics and research methods books to confirm my words. Originally Posted by China Doll

I have acquired statistical skills, and i have a MA not PHD yet. In europe someone who has attained a MA in psychology is referred to as "Psychologist". I did not state anywhere that i yet have a PHD, so where do you take this from? I do use qualitative methodics for my own researches. I do not think that statistics does a social science justice. What you say is true, but as i pointed out you need reference points for that. So generalizations are only trrue within a certain set of reference frames, you call it tendencies, sorry i am not native speaker, in europe we call it conclusions or generalizations. So the fact that 20 somethings state they are so mature is a generalization as well and therefor wrong. That was all i wanted to say.Because if you state you are mature, you have to put it in a certain context , in relation to something. A statement itself is NEVER true by itself, you are right by this. But if you read my posts about maturity that is exactly what i pointed out.
but as pointed out in qualitative research (and statistics too - just differently) every social group has a set of mind that reciprocates itself in a social context. This context includes words, actions , ways of relatiing to other people and what not. An escort has probably more incommon with other escorts than a wife and an escort have in common. So , there are generalizations possible, in fact it is the base of ever scientific research. Its just not as simple and easy to put, that is all.
I am someone who thinks statistics for social sciences does not do people and their individualities as you stated it justice, so its a bit contradictory on your behalf to point out something like statistics to proof me wrong, when statistics and the way the data are qcquired is the wors enemy of anything called individuality. Question forms are highly biased. They refer most likely to the mindset of the one printing them out then to the one who answers them. With qualitative rrsearch you honor the individuality, because you let people explore topics and values at their own liking. And therefor you might come to completely different conclusions as if you out a questionnaire in front of them. If you think everyone is an individual and acts free from any standards then why do standards even exist? And what about yourself? Are you an open escort or a hypocrite? If yes, why? Because why adapt to any standards and behave according to them if we are all so individual. I think its true - generalizations are dangerous - but its also true that individuality is overrated.
If you make qualitative research ( i for example do biographical interviews which are the most open forms of interviews since you only make ONE introductory question) you will find that within social circles (be it monogamy, polyamory, the demimonde) certain similarities in mindsets , thoughts and habits exist. Even within individuals. The western culture influences all.

I have acquired statistical skills, and i have a MA not PHD yet. I do use qualitative methodics for my own researches. I do not think that statistics does a social science justice. What you say is true, but as i pointed out you need reference points for that. So generalizations are not always true, but as pointed out in qualitative research (and statistics too - just differently) every social group has a set of mind that reciprocates itself in a social context. This context includes words, actions , ways of relatiing to other people and what not. An escort has probably more incommon with other escorts than a wife and an escort have in common. So , there are generalizations possible, in fact it is the base of ever scientific research. Its just not as simple and easy to put, that is all.
I am someone who thinks statistics for social sciences does not do people and their individualities as you stated it justice, so its a bit contradictory on your behalf to point out something like statistics to proof me wrong. If you think everyone is an individual and acts free from any standards then why do standards even exist? And what about yourself? Are you an open escort or a hypocrite? If yes, why? Because why adapt to any standards and behave according to them if we are all so individual. I think its true - generalizations are dangerous - but its also true that individuality is overrated.
If you make qualitative research ( i for example do biographical interviews which are the most open forms of interviews since you only make ONE introductory question) you will find that within social circles (be it monogamy, polyamory, the demimonde) certain similarities in mindsets , thoughts and habits exist. Even within individuals. The western culture influences all. Originally Posted by ninasastri

I am genuinely confused. It seems from this post that you have some idea of how generalizations work, but from your first posts in this thread, it doesn't seem that way at all.

I'm not saying that people don't adapt to standards. You are misreading my posts. Let me try to simplify this.

No matter what your education, you cannot make statements about an individual within a group no matter what data you have about the group.

By the way, if you don't have a PhD or a PsyD, you're not a Psychologist.

I am also confused about why escorts who don't tell everyone their business are hypocrites.

Hypocrisy as defined by Merrian-Webster: A feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not

As long as we don't pretend to be against escorting in our every day lives, I don't see where this hypocrisy lies. I think the issue of hypocrisy for me will only come up if someone in my civilian life asks me if I am an escort and I deny it.

No matter what your education, you cannot make statements about an individual within a group no matter what data you have about the group.

By the way, if you don't have a PhD or a PsyD, you're not a Psychologist.

I am also confused about why escorts who don't tell everyone their business are hypocrites. Originally Posted by China Doll

See you are generalizing yourself? Anyone who does not have a PHD is not a psychologist? Maybe in the USA that is, but not in europe, sweetheart! In Europe someone with a university education who finished with a MA (or MAGister in my country or Diplom in germany) is a PSYCHOLOGIST.
SO no, i do not have to have a PHD to be a psychologist. Different countries different habits.

I think that anyone pretending to be of some sort while he/she isn`t is a hypocrite. For example misleading boyfriends or partners about this job or about having an affair is hypocrisy, which means leading a double standard life. For example a person pretending to be monogamous while in reality having affairs is also a hypocrite.
If you are honest with peers , that is not hypocrisy. I am for example honest with my peers . Its plain and simple. There are political activists and there are some who are not. For me its easy to recognise since i am the political activist part. :-). Waiting if someone asks is just another creative lie of omission. why would anyone ask that? So people need to have to ask to get information ? I don`t think so. When i start dating someone i deliberately give out that information because its a basic human right to make informed decision. Waiting for someone to ASK you is - well . haha.. too funny.

As to generalizations, we speak of the same things. I do not like to refer to statistics though when pointing out social sciences. Statistics are the most biased thing in the world when it comes to social sciences, because these sciences change. Refer to philosophical views on psychology or sociology to find out more about it. Statistics are per se a very dangerous politically abused instrument to label people in social sciences. So - by telling me that generalizations are stupid and bad with pointing out to statistics as a way to proof it makes me smile :-)) . Statistics are the worst way of labeling people and influencing outcome by the researcher.
I agree statistics is good in medicine or physics but for social sciences? No way. Its a way to make money and its time-efficient, but that is all about it. Oh if you want to find out which Mercedes design suits people better its a good method too. But to dig into the soul and find out motivations or intricacies within people its a bad and even dangerous method.

Um just because one is not an open escort as you say does not make them a hypocrite dear...it makes them discreet. A hypocrite would be someone who preaches NO escorting while doing it, not one who has a bit of common sense to protect the very life they worked so hard to attain. Just because you feel it necessary to shout it from the roof tops with no regard for anyone else in your life, does not make you a better person lemme tell ya.

I find it very funny that you claim to have all this education yet you think it's smart to broadcast the fact that you are indeed a hooker? You can chum it up to escorting, being a courtesan, whatever, but you are still spreading your legs for money lol. I have never had a BF while doing this, and that is a conscious decision on my part. I don't however tell my parents, teachers, or friends what I do...it's not hypocritical, it's my choice to be DISCREET! That's what this business is built on....lies, lust, and discretion lmao!

I guess all that faux education didn't tell you that in the real world employers don't find hookers to be the best candidates for new hires, and heaven forbid one of the soccer dads seeing you on the net. It also did not teach you how to use a spell check and put spaces between paragraphs, but that's another story entirely. When you can't even use proper capitalizations and use the word "proof" when it should be "prove," you lose credibility on so many levels.

Just because someone does not do things the way you do does not make them a hypocrite, and it certainly does not make them any less credible especially when they have the facts to back it up.

You're new so I won't be too hard on you, but don't expect the masses to be the same. It's a good thing you didn't post this in Houston lol.

On another note...if you are so not a hypocrite why hide your face? Are you ashamed of someone finding out what you do or is for other reasons? Just curious.