I did that once on a lark and got a lot of furniture refinishing sites DT. LOLOriginally Posted by DesireTime
I did that once on a lark and got a lot of furniture refinishing sites DT. LOLOriginally Posted by DesireTime
LOL, I actually got a bunch of text ads for wood refinishing products in gmail that way.
And you hunger for the time,
Time to heal, desire time.
And your earth moves beneath
your own dream landscape...
U2, "A Sort of Homecoming"




Is that my cue?!Originally Posted by Thorn
Seriously though, I agree with Thorn on this point, and I think that some of the advice in this thread suggests doing things that are across the line, that amount to trying to exploit another person's weaknesses to take advantage of them. And there is no less bad karma to it simply because of gender roles or money changing hands or (semi-)sexual motives being involved etc.Originally Posted by Thorn
This is not to say that it is impossible to have an ethical sugar daddy - sugar baby relationship; as long as both people have "their eyes wide open", understand exactly what is going on and are trying to be honest with each other, it is hard (for me, anyway) to see what objection there could be to the relationship. But as soon as the sorts of manipulations and deceiving hustles and so forth that are the norm in interactions between dancer and customer in a SC find their way into an OTC relationship, it quickly becomes wrong and the start of a pretty steep slippery slope into really dispicable behavior.
Some of you may think that my opinion here is surprisingly different from the one I expressed about dancer-customer hustles and manipulations in SCs. (Anyone who has not read that thread and is interested can find it at http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43333.) However, the major point of the SEA notion is that a customer or dancer who voluntarily partticipates in the SC "game" is implicitly consenting to the modified standards of behavior it entails. However, it is an essential part of SEAs that they have clear boundaries in space and time and that it be well understood who is and who is not "playing"; once one leaves the club, takes off the costumes and so forth, it is back to being "real people" and back to the normal standards used to judge people's behavior.
Of course, dancers can get into the habit of treating men like "walking ATMs" from which money is to be made by manipulation and deceit in SCs and find themselves doing the same to men outside the clubs in their normal lives. Similarly, men can get into the habit of treating women like sex objects to be valued entirely for their bodies and orifices and find themselves doing the same to women outside the club in their normal lives. Moreover, this is a generic problem with SEAs; boxers are more likely to resort to physical violence outside the ring than other people, for example. But, as Thorn says, the fact that it is a common and generic problem does not make it OK...at least imo.
-Ww
"At this moment what more need we seek?
As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
- Zazen Wasan
I didn't mean to say that two wrongs make a right. I was merly pointing out that the manipulation in SCs goes both ways.Originally Posted by Thorn
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle




In case you might not have seen it, much the same issue is being discussed in this current Customer Conversation thread:Originally Posted by Destiny
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44374
starting at about the 50th post or so...among other topics, of course. Anyway, I agree with you; I think that the dancer-customer manipulations/hustles are much more symmetrical than most realize. yoda57us disagrees though (I think).
-Ww
"At this moment what more need we seek?
As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
- Zazen Wasan




Oh, call on me. Oh! Oh! Oh!Originally Posted by Thorn
We're not talking about hypothetical or average. We're talking about a specific case of a man who has money exercising the right to spend it the way he wants. It's not unreasonable to believe he really does have money since she has a girlfriend who's been in a similar arrangement before her. She should be able to draw some conclusions from how that arrangement functioned and how he reacted when it ended.Originally Posted by Thorn
I think you slipped past a key point. It's not for you to decide whether or not his time balances her time. That's his subjective judgment to make. It's his money to decide how to spend or give away and it's his decision what value to place on that.Originally Posted by Thorn
You countered Nina by pointing out it isn't right to kick someone wearing a "kick me" sign or roll a drunk, but I'm not convinced this guy is in that category. You concluded in an earlier post that rich people generally are not idiots, and cautioned her not to assume that he was. If he's entering into this type of arrangement more than once, that's not a sign that he's naive about it. So why the ethics lecture to her about inequality if he's rich, no idiot, experienced at this, and it's by mutual consent? Are you sure you're not judging the fairness of this mostly by your own personal values?
Also, let me throw this question in here, whether anyone has suggested it so far or not. Would it give the arrangement parity if she put out?
-Ev
Or. Is it possible to leave out questions of "worth" which are impossible to determine (I think I'm worth a hell of a lot, but, alas, there have been many customers who just disagree) and put it as such "I want the company of a young, beautiful girl and I am unlikely to achieve that, either because I am ugly, old, too busy to seek out an amateur etc." I mean, it is unlikely that a pretty 21 year old will WANT to date a homely 50 year old with limited social grace. That doesn't mean she is characterizing him as "unworthy" or lacking in merit. As per getting "something for nothing" - there is no nothing. There is always "something". It just may not be a thing that YOU particularly value. I personally think MY time and conversation if rife with "worth", thank you very much.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
That is riding on the assumption that the value of "her time and time alone" is worth nothing and thus concluding that the man sees himself as worth less than nothing. It has been proven throughout history that the company of an intelligent, personable and attractive woman- with or without sexual favors- is desireable and worth paying for. It has already been stated but is worth reiterating that it is not a woman's job to psychoanalyze her client and make him pass a rigorous test for emotional and financial stability before "alloowing" him to spend his own money on services he chooses of his own free will.Originally Posted by Thorn
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche




Boldface added.Originally Posted by Lilith
The words "woman" and "client" are interesting in that they imply that he is employing her (i.e., he is her client) simply as a woman, rather than as a dancer or an entertainer or a companion or whatever...that she is in essence being treated as a "pro" female...someone paid for her femaleness, I suppose.
Anyway, the deeper issue is what, if any, are a "sugar baby's" obligations to her "sugar daddy" client? If she does not have to be concerned with his emotional and financial stability, does she have any other responsibilities to him? If he asks her a direct question, does she owe him an honest and non-evasive answer? If she knows or suspects that he misunderstands something about their relationship, is she obligated to correct this misunderstanding? How do her obligations to him differ from those she would have to a mutual romantic partner who is (or is not) also helping support her?
Oh, as an aside, why is the word "allowing" used within quotation marks above?
-Ww
"At this moment what more need we seek?
As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
- Zazen Wasan
Sure, but I would add here that today's strippers have specific skills that make them ideal candidates for this "job". Most 21 year old girls will within a very short period of time annoy the hell out of most 50 year old men with little charm, and vice versa. Also, the non-stripper 21 year old would most likely feel very uncomfortable in this situation, especially if any acts of simple affection were involved. Strippers no doubt learn very quickly how to converse with these doofusses, and are comforable in close contact with them. Don't forget being able to hang out/go to dinner parties and converse with his peers. These skills are certainly of premium value for providing companionship to the middle-aged charm-challenged.Originally Posted by Lilith
[ww -I'm assuming his need here is companionship.]
Second, although not mentioned in the original "job" description, she could be of measurable monetary value playing the role of a "trophy" girlfriend of sorts "on his arm" at business functions where appearance may mean a great deal. This is probably limited to certain businesses and regions of the country, however. It's possible that although already quite rich, his appearance as a loser with women and thus weak is holding him back from gaining the confidence of potential business partners or clients. A stripper well skilled in stripper-shit, might be an ideal candidate for this role. She'll have to be VERY good, however, to pull off making most people believe she's not some pro he hired to impress them. This sort of arrangement is usually pretty transparent, but who knows, the uber-skilled girl might just pull it off..... And no doubt the return his investment, if this image "enhancement " was successful would be far in excess of any fees she could imagine getting paid.
Third, he may have a very low sex drive, or be completely impotent, problems which limit his options for normal relationships with women.
Last edited by stant; 01-24-2005 at 02:09 PM.
Speaking of overanalyzing...Originally Posted by Wwanderer
I'd have to give a resounding "Well, duh" to this. He is employing her for services she offers; this makes him a client just as the insurance agent I employ refers to me as her client. As to emphasizing the "woman" bit, it is another generic term like the others you mentioned- a bit broader but any of them would be interchangeable in the same sentence. It is also perhaps the more accurate of the inclusive terms listed, as she may be a dancer/entertainer/companion but I doubt a sugardaddy would hire Adam Sandler or Fred Astaire for the same purposes.
Well now, that's up to the sugardaddy, isn't it? After all, he knows what he wants and for which is willing to pay. I'm not overly concerned about the trivia of a private contract which the people engaged therein are comfortable with.Anyway, the deeper issue is what, if any, are a "sugar baby's" obligations to her "sugar daddy" client?
Goes back to the whole notion that the women concerned should subject their clients to a 29-point mental evaluation and net worth examination before "allowing" him to exercise free will in a free market.Oh, as an aside, why is the word "allowing" used within quotation marks above?
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Stant-
Or Fourth: He could be gay. Last year a fellow hired me as a beard for his firm's company Christmas party. Junior associate at an affluent yet very "boy's-club" law firm in the South; my presence was likely far more valuable to him in the long run than the fee he paid to me.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche




A misunderstanding - You appear to be talking about the services which he is knowingly purchasing from her, and about those I have no quibbles or worries, but that is not what I meant be "obligations". Rather I meant what obligations does she have to deal with him fairly and honestly, to make sure that there are not misunderstandings on his part about what services she is willing to provide (or not), etc. This is what I meant by the rest of that paragraph following your above quote of my previous post:Originally Posted by Lilith
Originally Posted by Wwanderer
Let me try to make the issue I am raising clearer by taking a more explicit example. In most professions which deal with individuals as clients, there is no obligation to examine a client's net worth or mental competence, as you note; however, it is generally considered good business practise and ethics to make sure that a client has an accurate and realistic understanding of what he/she will receive for his/her money. For example, if you went to a plastic surgeon to get, say, a "face lift", he/she would be required, by conventional medical ethics, to make sure that you had an accurate understanding of the likely cosmetic benefits of the procedure. This would entail both answering your explicit questions as clearly and accurately as possible and trying his/her best to correct any unrealistically optimistic expectations you might express, etc. These does not interfere with your right to "exercise free will in a free market"; they are, rather, obligations to make sure that you do so on the basis of accurate information and a clear understanding of what you are purchasing.Goes back to the whole notion that the women concerned should subject their clients to a 29-point mental evaluation and net worth examination before "allowing" him to exercise free will in a free market.
So, my question is whether or not you (not you personally, but all those participating in this discussion) see a "sugar baby" as having the same sort of obligations to her client "sugar daddy"? To give a really explicit, and salient, example, suppose a "sugar baby" has reason to suspect that her "sugar daddy" is expecting or hoping for sexual favors/services from her which she knows that she will not provide; is she obligated to make sure he understands that they will not be forthcoming so that he can decide if he still wants to spend money on her or not, given that information?
-Ww
"At this moment what more need we seek?
As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
- Zazen Wasan
There is a difference between good business practices and shooting yourself in the foot. Let's look at this from the sugardaddy/adult business similarities. There is almost certainly not a man in the club who doesn't expect or at least hope that, if he spends enough money, someone will offer sexual favors. How much business do you think a stripper would do if she announced upon introducing herself to a customer that he would never, under any circumstances, have the slightest sexual opportunity with her?Originally Posted by Wwanderer
Or we can try the relationship similarities. When she goes on a first date, is a woman ethically obligated to list her potential flaws and announce how long it will be before she puts out?
Maybe the interviewing process similarities are more your speed. "As you can see, I graduated top in my class and have five years more experience than you are looking for, and landed the three largest accounts at my prior firm, which will be transferring with me to my new place of employment. Just so you know, though, I'll be keeping this job only until a better one comes along... probably before I've even had time to learn the filing system."
Your analogy was in relation to a mainstream business, so let's apply this to one of them. The airline industry: "Welcome to Delta. The plane you are currently boarding had a serious mechanical problem two hours ago and that's why the flight was delayed."
Hotels: "Check-out is at noon and the bed in your room has been fucked on more than 1900 times. Enjoy your stay."
Restaurants: "The special is shrimp in a creamy cognac sauce. Our chef has never prepared shrimp before and started work yesterday. I recommend a young chardonney with the shrimp, but what the hell do I know- I've never drank wine in my life!"
Real estate: "This is a lovely Cape Cod, new to the market and in excellent schools. The carpets are all new due to the little old lady who lived here having an incontinence problem and it's on the market because she died three weeks ago. Right there by the fireplace, in fact. They didn't find her for six days."
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Oh my god. Like, in a funny way. Now I really want to point and whisper "Lilith just said "fuck""Hotels: "Check-out is at noon and the bed in your room has been fucked on more than 1900 times. Enjoy your stay."
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
Am I really such a goody? I cuss like a sailor in real life. Bad Lilith!
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche




Fwiiw, I have a very different view of how a dancer may treat a customer in a SC, a special venue that is all about money and sexual fantasy, than how she may properly treat a man OTC as a part of a conventional commercial interaction. See http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44374 for a long discussion.Originally Posted by Lilith
Imo, if he asks her directly, she is oblidged to answer honestly, and if she has good reason to think that he has grossly unrealistic expectations, she would be wise, in addition to being kind and ethical, to correct them. Much much grief in romantic (non-commercial) relationships can be avoided this way for all concerned by such honesty and candor, neh?Or we can try the relationship similarities. When she goes on a first date, is a woman ethically obligated to list her potential flaws and announce how long it will be before she puts out?
LOL, those examples are pretty funny, but they should not keep us from noticing that the basis of your justification of sugar baby behavior seems to be changing. Before, if I understood you correctly, you seemed to be asserting some sort of "caveat emptor" position...basically that all the responsibility is the client's (consumer's) because he/she is exercising free will in a free market. Right? Now you seem to be saying that it may be wrong or unethical to be dishonest with a client, but that it is very common n the market place. I would not dispute that claim, but is something really less wrong because it is common? Do you really believe that?Maybe the interviewing process similarities are more your speed. ...
Your analogy was in relation to a mainstream business, so let's apply this to one of them.
And, btw, I think my metaphor of the plastic surgeon and the patient wanting a "face lift" is far more apt than the mass market business metaphors because cosmetic surgery is a quite personal issue and doctor-patient relationships can be, in a sense, very intimate or emotional. As can, of course, sugar baby - sugar daddy ones.
-Ww
"At this moment what more need we seek?
As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
- Zazen Wasan




Damn, you guys won't be satisfied she's fully met her ethical obligations unless there's a signed contract on this thing with the appropriate government-mandated disclosures. I propose she get a seller's agent and he a buyer's agent to negotiate the deal like real estate. Ladies, this transaction is too complicated to list yourself on the market as For Sale By Owner!Originally Posted by Wwanderer
![]()
-Ev




And I'll leave the specific issues and be honest with you here. That's what always gets under my skin about your posts. (Yeah, I know that's my problem; I'll deal.) I view being general and disassociative as elements of lecturing rather than addressing the concerns of the specific case outlined by the original poster. (Not that I can't be charged with the same "offense" in certain cases myself.Originally Posted by Thorn
)
I understand it's not your intent to lecture, but being disassociative discussing these issues from a third party perspective comes off to me as aloof and smug. Rather than offering perspective specific to the individual case and rather than it seem like concern for the welfare of the persons involved, it sounds like an ethics 101 lesson for the sophomore class. (See my elongated comments at ivorytowerforum.everythingsaphilosophicaldebate.co m/?thread1234.pffft.![]()
)
However, in spite of my bringing this up, I don't want to regulate or censor your focus or damper your enthusiasm for discussion. I'm only expressing why I feel that you're constantly lecturing us. Call this post my venting and feel free to view it as half baked.![]()
Yeah, me too. Always a nice disclaimer to punctuate the end of an otherwise impassioned diatribe.Originally Posted by Thorn
![]()
-Ev




Note that I am asking a question, and believe it or not, I am actually quite interested in the answers that sugar babies or potential ones would give.Originally Posted by evan_essence
No one has asked, but if you or anyone cares what I think about it, here it is: If you hurt someone, make them seriously unhappy, and if you knew or strongly suspected things would turn out that way and if you could have avoided it but did not do so solely or primarily for your own financial gain, then you have done something wrong. You have mistreated someone in order to get their money. There are doubtless some exceptions to this general statement, but they are rare and need very careful and clear justification. That is my opinion, nothing more.
In any case, there is obviously no need at all to satisfy me (or "us guys"). If you need to satisfy anyone, it is primarily yourself. The real Catch-22 though is that you not only need to satisfy yourself "now" that you are comfortable doing whatever, you also have to satisfy your future self. A 20- or 30-something will often be surprised at how harsh and unforgiving the person in the mirror becomes when he/she is looking back from, say, his/her 50s.
But enough of the moralizing and warnings and so forth; people rarely learn anything useful from such "advice" or from the experience of others. Really, I'd mostly like to hear what feels right/comfortable to (actual or potential) sugar babies in terms of honesty/fairness with their sugar daddies.
-Ww
Last edited by Wwanderer; 01-25-2005 at 09:19 AM.
"At this moment what more need we seek?
As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
- Zazen Wasan
Good god, that's a hell of a chip on your shoulder. I think I'll restrict myself in the future to debating reasonable people.Originally Posted by Wwanderer
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche



You think it's "unreasonable" and "a chip on your shoulder" to advocate that people be honest with each other?




Just to keep the issue straight/clear, my opinion about obligations of honesty refers directly to your comparison to relationships, non-commercial ones I thought you meant. In particular, it looked like this:Originally Posted by Lilith
Originally Posted by Lilith
To the extent that the context is understood, that is indeed my view; I think that lying in response to direct questions in the context of a romantic relationship, even a potential new one (as on a first date), is wrong. While I am sure that some disagree, I doubt that my opinion is particularly unusual.Originally Posted by Wwanderer
But in any case, since this discussion appears to be irritating you, I agree that it is probably best to drop it now. My apologies for any offense my opinion may have given you (and others).
-Ww
Last edited by Wwanderer; 01-25-2005 at 10:13 AM.
"At this moment what more need we seek?
As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
- Zazen Wasan
Well, I thought that what was I was doing. If you want something that is unlikely to be volunteered, a sensible way of getting it is to pay. Should men who go to hookers feel bad about it? Because, after all, they are putting in the same time and effort as the hooker, and yet the hooker walks away with the cash. It doesn't mean that the men sit around flagellating themselves about being losers. It just means that, for whatever reason, they cannot or are not inclined to seek out amateur sex. Before you point out - I realize that the situation is not sexual either, and that is what the postings are about. It's just an analogy where your criteria applies. You could probably apply it equally well to a babysitter.Originally Posted by Thorn
Again, we assigning values where inappropriate - the fact that a pretty young girl is not likely to date a homely older man does not mean that a value is being assigned - for that matter, do you assign value of that sort to every girl (or guy - I'm not judging you) that you've turned down? Do you expect that every girl/guy that has turned you down is judging you in that way? Now in these cases, the guys want girls who would normally be interested in dating guys their own age to date them. What is the best way to do this? Hmmm. It's just fee for service.Originally Posted by Thorn
Okay, I probably should have said this in the first place: I see your point. And actually, in this kind of relationship the guy is still expected to TRY, despite the monetary component. He still has impress her. But I think it can equally apply to what I posted above - the guy has desires that someone else is not likely to match. It doesn't have to have value assigned to it, which is why I analogized to dating in the first place - it's not a matter of assigning value, necessarily. It is also true that even just standard club relations are based on the premise that MY time is worth more than his - at least in that environment. But, of course, no one is paying for "your time" in that sense. They are paying for a little package - your time, your company, and the likelihood that you will be a little more agreeable than a standard date, the way you look, and of course, we must not forget, the fact that you go away afterward - no muss, no fuss.Originally Posted by Thorn
Yeah, I do see your point. It seems unlikely. But that doesn't mean (and I apologize if this is a point that has been exhausted) that the "sugar baby" in question (that is such ridiculous terminology - it makes me depressed) is not providing a valid service to a lonely, pathetic person without grifting him. It also doesn't mean that she (or he) is responsible to his low self-esteem or the possible bad character that it derives from. Like, okay: the guy may be lonely and sad, and since he doesn't have friends (and we assume not by his choice, or he wouldn't be lonely) he is probably boring or lame or something, but still a good and decent person. He may feel bad about not having friends, and feel bad about having to pay someone to be his friend, but still want the person around, and still be glad that the person is around, paycheque or no.Originally Posted by Thorn
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
Do I think it reasonable that a woman should owe some ethical obligation to a man who directly asks her on the first date in regards to how soon she will put out ("So, am I gonna get some tonight? How about if I buy you the New York Strip? What about the second date?")? No, I don't find that the opinion of a reasonable person. I also think such a person has no place in a debate about ethics, if such a scenario concerns them only in regards to the woman's "ethical" obligations to a man like that.Originally Posted by Rath
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Bookmarks