Log in

View Full Version : Sugardaddy; would you?



Pages : 1 [2]

Jenny
12-02-2006, 08:07 AM
Whew! Lots of assumptions.
well, yeah.


What if he really does own her place? As in arrange to have her to stay at one of his properties, or cover the cost of wherever she wants to live or whatever she wants to do?
That wouldn't surprise me?

What if he really likes her and respects her and would never dream of imposing on her beyond the time arrangement they have because that would be boorish and insulting and would not allow her to pursue other things in her life?
I'm sure he does like her; I'm sure he respects her insofar as guys generally respect women that they are paying to sleep with them. However, I find it hard to believe that you are likely to find a guy who is paying you like that who is NOT going to be possessive of your time, and the likelihood that the time arrangement will be limited to twice a week is not great. I don't think it is because guys are boorish and piggies, but because most people are hyper aware of difference in status that comes with this financial arrangement, and very few people who like her enough to want to pay her that much money a week are going to not like her enough to limit the contact to 3 hours a week.

If it were a woman offering to "keep" a young man in the same way, I would issue the same caution. This is not a gender role issue (I would not think) but a workplace issue.


Not all guys are hopeless, selfish pigs. I know, I know, we've given you little in the way of evidence to think otherwise. But our half of the species is also full of surprises; some of them mildly pleasant, and a few of them really astonishing.
Oh come now. I have plenty of reason to think otherwise. Just because the blue guys have stripped me of my innocence doesn't mean I carry that resentment into my everyday life.

Seriously, I've had offers like this, hence all the thought. As I said, it's a good deal; however I cannot think it is a good idea to be someone's professional girlfriend unless you would want to be his (or her) amateur girlfriend as well. Otherwise you have a lot of money and a miserable life. (The guy doesn't have to be a pig or unbearable for you to be miserable. Like I said, the hours and effort involved with being a girlfriend are long; if they are not recreational... well, you know.)

Melonie
12-02-2006, 08:16 AM
SugarDaddy = John

Actually, it's closer to Sugar Daddy = John with a huge tax write-off if things are set up properly ... in other words, the IRS winds up footing a large portion of the cost of Sugar !!!

However, this is now changing due to a couple of recent IRS tax court precedents ... which allowed the tax write off for Daddy but wound up sending the dancer a bill for unpaid taxes due on 'payments for services rendered'.

Chicagoeditor
12-02-2006, 08:40 AM
"...which almost completely diminishes your risk of violence or STDs (assuming you make him get tested)..."

Oh please. The guy who is paying for sex from you may very well be paying for it with others. Putting your faith in "getting him tested" is just whistling in the dark.

Deogol
12-02-2006, 10:19 AM
Whew! Lots of assumptions.

What if he really does own her place? As in arrange to have her to stay at one of his properties, or cover the cost of wherever she wants to live or whatever she wants to do? What if he really likes her and respects her and would never dream of imposing on her beyond the time arrangement they have because that would be boorish and insulting and would not allow her to pursue other things in her life?

Not all guys are hopeless, selfish pigs. I know, I know, we've given you little in the way of evidence to think otherwise. But our half of the species is also full of surprises; some of them mildly pleasant, and a few of them really astonishing.


That is a pretty small "what if" dude.

Lets see, own the house and very bed she lives in, take her away from all her friends in some strange place, be the sole source of money for food, clothing, etc... yea - sounds like a really good position to find one's self in.

Girls who are fucked over by SDs deserve paying the tuition at the School of Hard Knocks just for being so foolish.

Jenny
12-02-2006, 11:23 AM
Girls who are fucked over by SDs deserve paying the tuition at the School of Hard Knocks just for being so foolish.Now that's just harsh. Keep in mind that the day we all get what we deserve, none of us will likely be very happy about it.

Deogol
12-02-2006, 12:07 PM
Now that's just harsh. Keep in mind that the day we all get what we deserve, none of us will likely be very happy about it.

I've been fucked over so many times in life I would love to get what I deserve - I am due some f'in chocolate, baby!

cameronfl
12-02-2006, 12:19 PM
Girl, you better get your money.

Don't think for one second that any other broad on here wouldn't. They just wouldn't admit it.

Get your money while you can. You've slept with men before for free I'm sure.
So now get paid for it.

Anyone on here who even attempts to knock your hustle is a hypocrite.

Excuse me??? I dont think anyone is "knocking her hustle". I personally dont have a problem with anything anyone does(as long as it doesnt affect me ie: hooking IN the club).
But everyone has their own comfort level and their own set of whats right and wrong. Do not for an INSTANT think that everyone here would do all the same things...or that everyone here is willign to do ANYTHING if the price is high. Some things arent worth the money to some....I'm sure there are somethings out there that even YOU wouldnt do for any price.

Then again...maybe not. Who knows.

All Good Things
12-02-2006, 01:11 PM
I'm sure he does like her; I'm sure he respects her insofar as guys generally respect women that they are paying to sleep with them.

Well, the implication of an inherent limitation on respect seems flawed. I mean, it’s not my game, but I’d image two adults who readily accept the arrangement from a moral and emotional perspective could indeed respect each other.


However, I find it hard to believe that you are likely to find a guy who is paying you like that who is NOT going to be possessive of your time, and the likelihood that the time arrangement will be limited to twice a week is not great. I don't think it is because guys are boorish and piggies, but because most people are hyper aware of difference in status that comes with this financial arrangement, and very few people who like her enough to want to pay her that much money a week are going to not like her enough to limit the contact to 3 hours a week.

OK, I’m going to say something here that’s probably going to get me into trouble.

A great deal of your argument rests on the fact that the sum of money is large, enormous. “It’s hard to believe you’re likely to find a guy who is paying you like that…” “very few people who like her enough to want to pay her that much money a week are going to not like her enough to limit the contact to 3 hours a week.”

So here’s the deal. There is a demographic where that is not “a lot of money.” It’s a small or moderate personal expense (or if you have a good accountant, a business one.) Another property, a yacht, part of the upkeep on a personal aircraft. Once you get above about 20 million in liquid assets, the interest alone will keep you at an income of $1.6 million a year before taxes, and that neglects all the other income-producing businesses, properties, partnerships, etc. that are usually floating around net-worths. So the income is probably around $3 million a year.

Your position would suggest that if it’s not a lot of money to the guy, at least the door opens for him to behave more gallantly. Perhaps?

Anyway, the other thing to remember is the trade-off between money and time. People engaged in businesses at this level have a lot of assets, but their available spontaneous time goes right down the tubes. Everything is planned, and there is generally little time. So his ability to pay a lot of money easily is likely to restrict the amount of time he could demand of her, even if he wanted to (yeah, I know there are exceptions: trust fund kids, retirees, etc.)


Seriously, I've had offers like this, hence all the thought.

You have the experience in judging the relative financial standing of the guys who made you your offers, so you are way ahead of me there. But I think it’s important to remember the diversity of guys in the world, both in terms of financial assets and generally willingness to behave with dignity and respect in such arrangements.

All Good Things
12-02-2006, 01:24 PM
That is a pretty small "what if" dude.

Lets see, own the house and very bed she lives in, take her away from all her friends in some strange place, be the sole source of money for food, clothing, etc... yea - sounds like a really good position to find one's self in.

Girls who are fucked over by SDs deserve paying the tuition at the School of Hard Knocks just for being so foolish.

I think you missed the part about "covering the cost of wherever she wants to live."

From the discussion so far in the thread, it appears that the amount of money offered was really compelling to most female posters. And they would be free to end it at any time. And live their lives as they like. It doesn't strike me as indentured servitude.

Jenny
12-02-2006, 01:28 PM
Well, the implication of an inherent limitation on respect seems flawed. I mean, it’s not my game, but I’d image two adults who readily accept the arrangement from a moral and emotional perspective could indeed respect each other.
Well, I did say "generally." I would agree that they can, but I would also say that in the majority of cases the first time they fight he's going to call her a whore. (You can tell I'm not a fun person to watch "pretty woman" with).


OK, I’m going to say something here that’s probably going to get me into trouble.
With moi? Don't be silly. I'm hyper medicated and I have a big fluffy head. I am feeling very agreeable.


So here’s the deal. There is a demographic where that is not “a lot of money.”
Certainly, I realize, and I would assume that he is in that demographic. However, having a lot more money than the average person doesn't always translate in wanting to pay vastly more than the market rate for a product.


Your position would suggest that if it’s not a lot of money to the guy, at least the door opens for him to behave more gallantly. Perhaps?
I don't think "gallantry" is at odds with what I'm saying. I'm not saying that he would necessarily be impolite to her or mean, or make demands that seem unreasonable on their face; I'm just saying that the time commitment may be greater than it is initially put to her and that the commitment-commitment almost certainly would be, and that the effort it takes to be someone's "girlfriend" in a perfectly normal way is actually quite a lot when you aren't doing it for fun.


So his ability to pay a lot of money easily is likely to restrict the amount of time he could demand of her, even if he wanted to (yeah, I know there are exceptions: trust fund kids, retirees, etc.)
Okay, good point. So he may not have the time to want to be glued to her. I still think that an amount of fidelity would be demanded, as would a certain amount of being "on call". Are there EVER exceptions? Probably, but I wouldn't count on them.

Dottie Rebel
12-02-2006, 03:49 PM
"...which almost completely diminishes your risk of violence or STDs (assuming you make him get tested)..."

Oh please. The guy who is paying for sex from you may very well be paying for it with others. Putting your faith in "getting him tested" is just whistling in the dark.

Well, as long as you do your "whistling" with a condom on I don't see the problem. And I'm not fucking ANYONE I'm not married to without one. Neither should any prostitute.

You have to admit that her chances of getting something nasty are greatly diminished if she fucks one guy who has been tested WITH a condom, versus 7-8 guys a week.

Mastridonicus
12-02-2006, 11:14 PM
I'm interested about her.

What if she wants out? I mean what should she do to protect the income coming to her.

To be honest? I'd think anyone willing to pay 2500/week for a girl, and is real about, you can bet has done his homework. I'm sure he wouldn't be opposed to her drilling him and making sure he's healthy/serious/and willing to protect his investment being you.

There is no contract for these kind of things, but if this guy has 2500/week to spare, be clear that he knows his business and is getting it from somewhere. Be clear of what he expects of you and what you expect of him. So far it looks like all you know is sex twice a week, but for all you know he may be owning you in his mind. Keep in mind the playboy bunnies. He's a sugar daddy, and he's got some crazy rules.

Just protect yourself. And make sure you have a personal goal to achieve before you can walk. I agree with smartcookie's comment.

But yea, I'd consider being someone's bitch for 2500/week :D

evan_essence
12-03-2006, 03:18 AM
Argh I am so torn with a difficult decision. I have had a very tempting offer from a potential sugardaddy to be his sugarbaby/ girlfriend for $2500 a week. I'd probably see him once or twice a week and I know he will be expecting sex.Well, I couldn't do the sex, but that's my personal boundary, not a moral admonishment. If you agree to the deal, make sure you save enough money to finance getting away from it if you decide to. It's always good to have options.

It's more important for you to analyze how you feel about it than listen to me. What do you see as the pluses and minuses? You really haven't elaborated much on what type of guy he is, what you think of being around him and whether or not you think the arrangement will be relatively free of unpleasant complications. Gut instinct should help guide you. If you have some reservations about it, what are they?

-Ev

Melonie
12-03-2006, 06:44 AM
There is a demographic where that is not “a lot of money.” It’s a small or moderate personal expense (or if you have a good accountant, a business one.) Another property, a yacht, part of the upkeep on a personal aircraft.

In the 'upscale' demographic, you're absolutely right that there are many guys out there for whom spending an extra $100k a year is a 'drop in the proverbial bucket' ... especially when their accountants and attorneys figure out ways for the taxman to effectively pay half of it !


People engaged in businesses at this level have a lot of assets, but their available spontaneous time goes right down the tubes. Everything is planned, and there is generally little time. So his ability to pay a lot of money easily is likely to restrict the amount of time he could demand of her, even if he wanted to ...

I still think that an amount of fidelity would be demanded, as would a certain amount of being "on call"

This seems to be the essence of it. Exceptions like 'trust fund baby's' aside, you're generally talking about guys who have wall to wall business commitments, on top of family commitments, who simply don't have time to socialize. At the same time you're talking about guys whose career success rests greatly on their 'reputations', meaning that such guys are loathe to take any sort of unavoidable risk (i.e. prostitutes and escorts always carry both a sting operation bust risk as well as a Heidi Fleiss expose' risk).

As such, setting up a 'Sugar Daddy' situation means that the guy will always have 'first priority' with the girl in question when his business travels allow him to be in that particular city overnight, that the apartment and girl he has 'taken an interest in' represent a risk-free source of top-notch entertainment / stress relief / companionship when he wants it and has time for it - but also represent an annoyance free / risk free situation when he doesn't want it or doesn't have time for it (or damn well better !).

It also should go without saying that, without the involvement of an escort agency or booking agency or club or any sort of third party in setting up a 'sugar daddy' arrangement, if things should ever get unpleasant, this constitutes a situation of the word of a 'stripper' against the word of a fine, upstanding, very rich corporate officer. Therefore anybody seriously considering entering into such a 'sugar daddy' situation had better realize from the onset that you'll be playing by his rules ... and that any major breach of those rules can have SERIOUS consequences !


What if she wants out? I mean what should she do to protect the income coming to her

Again, keep in mind the relative 'social / legal / financial positions' involved, as well as the fact that the girl in question has probably been made privy to many of the guy's business adventures. Thus ending the 'relationship' will be the trickiest part. I wouldn't want to cast aspersions, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that a girl wanting 'out' of her 'sugar daddy' arrangement, a girl with a big mouth, fiery emotions, too much 'inside information' about daddy, and a penchant for blackmail or public spectacle, could simply wind up in a dumpster as a result of a 'totally coincidental' assault by a total stranger while 'daddy' was on a business trip 3000 miles away !!!!!

~

Optimist
12-03-2006, 01:42 PM
.

But yea, I'd consider being someone's bitch for 2500/week :D

OK, this is my formal offer, yummyboy!:D

I dated a lawyer for years and a stock broker and I had to literally cry and BEG to see either one of 'em! I've never seen a crazy workload like that. So make sure he has that kind of insane schedule and you won't get sick of seeing him. Now that I think about it I'm the one who needed the contract to get them out of the stupid office!

Mastridonicus
12-03-2006, 04:56 PM
You don't even know what I look like!

Though Yummyboy...

I feel like that polkadot gummi bear that got tossed out of the original lineup.

*bouncey bouncey*

Mastridonicus
12-03-2006, 04:57 PM
Honestly.... at 2500/week I don't even care if it's a chick.

So... TOO? DW? whatsup?

Lysondra
12-03-2006, 08:03 PM
Well, there's often little relationship between intelligence and income, but guys who write e-mails that inane strain the assumption.

Look, I'm sure you know that if you want to go private, no corporate jet can make that hop. Even the Gulfstream V can only get to Hawaii from LAX. The Hawaii to Cairns or Hawaii to Sidney leg of the trip would require a retrofitted 747. And who wants to fly commercial for 13 hours?

So you'd be stuck with round-trip first-class tickets on a commercial airline. But you'd never take that, anyway. You're engaged and happy and out of the game. ;)



I prefer intelligent conversations. If I want a sugar daddy, I want him to provide more than money.. I want to bond and be able to understand him and laugh over cigars and wine.

And I would take some offers... my partner and I agreed to my 'price' for being a sugarbaby and prostitution. :)

Casual Observer
12-03-2006, 08:19 PM
I mean, it’s not my game, but I’d image two adults who readily accept the arrangement from a moral and emotional perspective could indeed respect each other.

I don't disagree, TOO, given that's it's still a business arrangement, albeit a very personal one. And I'm sure there are not a few men in a position where their wealth and free time are such diametrically opposed values that the idea of spending $2500/week on an on-call girl is not only appealing, but cost-effective at multiple levels. Hell, don't most of us have that ideal in mind much of the time anyway? Isn't a kept girl merely an extension of our SC patronage writ large?

That said, an arrangement along SmartCookie's suggestion seems judicious.

lexXe
12-03-2006, 08:47 PM
I prefer intelligent conversations. If I want a sugar daddy, I want him to provide more than money.. I want to bond and be able to understand him and laugh over cigars and wine.

Exactly....I can only agree if there is more than money involved. For me, there has to be a bond and some level of fun/excitement.

All Good Things
12-04-2006, 11:11 PM
I prefer intelligent conversations. If I want a sugar daddy, I want him to provide more than money.. I want to bond and be able to understand him and laugh over cigars and wine.

A very beautiful sentence. You have my toes tingling.

The French perfected this about five centuries ago, and have held up the tradition to modern times.

It's a source of great shame and dismay that our culture never matured enough to embrace this. We became sidetracked by puritanical nonsense and hypocrisy. It didn't have to be this way -- Ben Franklin set the stage for a much more enlightened view by keeping women in cities up and down the East Coast, and at least three different mistresses in Paris during the period he was Ambassador during the Revolutionary War.

Jay Zeno
12-04-2006, 11:26 PM
Well, Josie asked a question, "Is it so bad?" meaning, can she justify doing it, and she got, predictably, a host of answers ranging at the extremes from "Hell, no," to, "Hell, yes."

Josie, if you're still reading this, it's you and your sensibilities. I imagine that you've got plenty of data here to make a decision. If you decide not to, there's no issue. If you decide to go ahead with it, just make sure you take very good precautions against too much dependence, the angry spouse, the STDs, etc., and then enjoy it while it lasts.

tootsie
12-04-2006, 11:45 PM
I've been fucked over so many times in life I would love to get what I deserve - I am due some f'in chocolate, baby!


I can tell, you seem pretty bitter.:'(

Sunshine73
12-04-2006, 11:59 PM
Personally, I couldn't do it. But I am nobody to say what's right and wrong. I guess my advice would be that if you decide to do it, be really really protective of your health....and what if he starts trying shit that you are uncomfortable with? Who would stop him if it was just you and him alone? What if a condom broke? What if he's got an STD? What if he's a psycho and you cut him off from the sex, then what?

Sorry to be gloom and doom , but remember that your health and safety are so so so important :p

Ditto.

Jay Zeno
12-04-2006, 11:59 PM
I think Jenny's comment about "getting what we deserve"......

What we deserve is nothing except perhaps what we work for. At our worst in our First World countries, we got it pretty good. 99% of the other people who have ever lived have been shorted a functional brain, a functional body, or been born to a deprived, or famine-filled, or war-torn country. We're doing better than we deserve, if you look at the history of our species to judge what we "deserve."

Wwanderer
12-05-2006, 01:46 PM
The French perfected this about five centuries ago, and have held up the tradition to modern times.

It's a source of great shame and dismay that our culture never matured enough to embrace this. We became sidetracked by puritanical nonsense and hypocrisy. It didn't have to be this way --

Word. And it really is too bad that the US, which in a material sense could afford to have the most luxuriously erotic culture on the planet, is so messed up about sex and money. The rest of the world is generally baffled by American sexual mores as far as I can tell.

Fortunately, the rest of the world is not so far away these days, and imo those who have only experienced the commercial sex scene in the US, as either providers or customers, are missing whole realms of possibilities and options. Personally, I barely bother with it in the US any more.


SugarDaddy = John

Fwiiw, in my rather limited experience in this particular scene, the above is incorrect in at least one important sense. Namely, a successful long term SugarDaddy/Babby relationship depends on some degree of compatibility and chemistry between the two people, which is not to say that there has to be some sort of idealized or conventional romance involved, but it does require more than just good sex and good money on the two sides of the bed.

-Ww

Tara Nicole
12-05-2006, 02:36 PM
I could do it if it were an eye candy and no sex arrangment with a well liked respected customer.

There are always a few regulars who are nice, hardworking guys who either are not ready to date due to emotional baggage or because of extremely demanding job. Some men just don't have the personal time to contribute and participate a real relationship.