Has anybody on here ever had a sugar baby?

[Huntn]

Ah, no, @Huntn; in fairness, I don't think that you are the person who is "setting me off" here……….that honour goes to the OP, posting yet another surreal and bizarre thread with some of the oddest set of values and ideals by which to live a life that I have seen in the First World.

What bothers me about the thread is not just the deplorable - and obvious crudity - of the world of 'sugar daddies' and 'sugar babies', or even that this should be viewed as some sort of an ideal template for relationships, or transactional encounters with a sexual element - but that the transactional sense is deliberately denied and instead, delusional nonsense about love is indulged.

Transactional relationships are very different from ones which have grown, or evolved naturally. I'm not saying that love is impossible in such situations, but - given power imbalances, subliminal mutual contempt and resentment, and feelings of 'ownership' resulting from the notion of having 'bought' something, I'd say that it would be a lot less likely that one might find it in such a setting.

You've had some issues with the way I described sexual motivation before from a male perspective and I thought "fresh fruit" would bug you. Apologies again, I could have worded that better, I did not mean to imply that it would absolutely set you off. I value your input in this forum and our interaction.

 

[A.Goldberg]

Then what about Charlie sheen?

Men in all socioeconomic groups cheat. Rich, poor, and middle class. When it comes to infidelity and divorce, wealthier, more educated, and older people are less likely to cheat and less likely to divorce.

 

[D.T.]

I think you will find you need to be older than 18 to qualify as a sugar daddy.

The OP is more of a Milk Dud.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

You've had some issues with the way I described sexual motivation before from a male perspective and I thought "fresh fruit" would bug you. Apologies again, I could have worded that better, I did not mean to imply that it would absolutely set you off. I value your input in this forum and our interaction.

Well, I am a student of politics and power - and how it is used, deployed and expressed - in the broadest sense, and have studied it, and taught it, and - later - have worked in the field of political analysis in international settings for years.

Language is a tool of and a means of communication, but it is also a vehicle used to convey commands, information, facts, actions, ideas, and thoughts among many other things. However, it is not always a neutral vehicle, as it carries more than information, and is heavily freighted with the accumulated attitudes of centuries of use.

This means that it also carries attitudes, and conveys and reinforces sub-conscious values and beliefs. Traditionally, groups (races, nationalities, genders) which have been dominant have used language to define and to describe other groups in ways which have served to reinforce existing relations. The less powerful have been defined by the more powerful, and often in ways that have been less than flattering.

Thus, the whole idea of 'political correctness' was an attempt to reclaim language, and, at the same time, to query assumptions and the lofty condescending - and sometimes offensive - use of words to describe groups which - at the worst - had been denigrated by the use of language as a tool of power against them.

Re the use of your words of 'fresh fruit', I doubt you'd ever hear a woman describing an older man's attraction for a much younger woman in quite those terms. Other words - and, sometimes, not necessarily all that complimentary of the particular female if she was of an especially egregiously materialistic mindset - would be used. However, my issue wasn't with male desire, but with how it was described.

Nevertheless, I do think that some of the dynamics which underpin some of these exchanges are changing, and your own post, @Huntn, alludes to this. Economic relations have changed between the genders; most women - especially middle class women - are sufficiently educated to be able to (and be expected to) support themselves financially.

They are no longer economically dependent on men, - they are financially autonomous - and this means that the old transactional relationships based on a trade of money for sexual access are somewhat less likely to happen in the first world these days, at least in middle class circles. Other such transactions may occur, and do - but they tend to increasingly happen between older men and women from poorer countries as you mentioned yourself in an earlier post.

 

[Huntn]

Well, I am a student of politics and power - and how it is used, deployed and expressed - in the broadest sense, and have studied it, and taught it, and - later - have worked in the field of political analysis in international settings for years.

Language is a tool of and a means of communication, but it is also a vehicle used to convey commands, information, facts, actions, ideas, and thoughts among many other things. However, it is not always a neutral vehicle, as it carries more than information, and is heavily freighted with the accumulated attitudes of centuries of use.

This means that it also carries attitudes, and conveys and reinforces sub-conscious values and beliefs. Traditionally, groups (races, nationalities, genders) which have been dominant have used language to define and to describe other groups in ways which have served to reinforce existing relations. The less powerful have been defined by the more powerful, and often in ways that have been less than flattering.

Thus, the whole idea of 'political correctness' was an attempt to reclaim language, and, at the same time, to query assumptions and the lofty condescending - and sometimes offensive - use of words to describe groups which - at the worst - had been denigrated by the use of language as a tool of power against them.

Re the use of your words of 'fresh fruit', I doubt you'd ever hear a woman describing an older man's attraction for a much younger woman in quite those terms. Other words - and, sometimes, not necessarily all that complimentary of the particular female if she was of an especially egregiously materialistic mindset - would be used. However, my issue wasn't with male desire, but with how it was described.

Nevertheless, I do think that some of the dynamics which underpin some of these exchanges are changing, and your own post, @Huntn, alludes to this. Economic relations have changed between the genders; most women - especially middle class women - are sufficiently educated to be able to (and be expected to) support themselves financially.

They are no longer economically dependent on men, - they are financially autonomous - and this means that the old transactional relationships based on a trade of money for sexual access are somewhat less likely to happen in the first world these days, at least in middle class circles. Other such transactions may occur, and do - but they tend to increasingly happen between older men and women from poorer countries as you mentioned yourself in an earlier post.

And that is a shocker for some male chauvinists.

I agree that text communicating has it's challenges. In many cases I use terms that I've heard to express an attitude or I express sexuality in a mechanical way (as in the Ex Machina thread) and frequently it's appearing, I don't make enough effort to explain exactly what I mean, or expressly say those are not my attitudes, or that the mechanics or pregnancy do not include a demeaning view of women on my part (such as the unfortunate use of the word "incubator" ) , but they capture a role, an expressed attitude or motive, but not necessarily mine. We are all products of a life time of interacting with other people, and when dealing with a lack of face to face interaction and body language, we read into what is being typed, sometimes correctly and sometimes not.

 

[NY Guitarist]

The idea of sugar daddy/baby has, in my opinion, the likelihood of psychological damage in both participants, who are unable to form intimate relationships and therefore have to use sex and money to represent their 'value'.

It's very common, I read it on the internet.

 

[Hieveryone]

Ah, no, @Huntn; in fairness, I don't think that you are the person who is "setting me off" here……….that honour goes to the OP, posting yet another surreal and bizarre thread with some of the oddest set of values and ideals by which to live a life that I have seen in the First World.

What bothers me about the thread is not just the deplorable - and obvious crudity - of the world of 'sugar daddies' and 'sugar babies', or even that this should be viewed as some sort of an ideal template for relationships, or transactional encounters with a sexual element - but that the transactional sense is deliberately denied and instead, delusional nonsense about love is indulged.

Transactional relationships are very different from ones which have grown, or evolved naturally. I'm not saying that love is impossible in such situations, but - given power imbalances, subliminal mutual contempt and resentment, and feelings of 'ownership' resulting from the notion of having 'bought' something, I'd say that it would be a lot less likely that one might find it in such a setting.

This is the problem with older people. They don't evolve. Old ideas get spewed out which they believe is still right. It's 2015. The world has changed. People do things differently now. Live in the present. Not the past.

 

[Hieveryone]

This thread is really stacking up the replies and I've not read them all.

I know of one real life case of a sugar daddy, through a casual friend, his sister to be exact. I never caught the sugar daddy's exact age, but my impression is that he is an older man say 50s, wealthy, married, and wants to taste some fresh fruit. Sorry @Scepticalscribe not said to set you off, lol, but that description paints an appropriate picture.

Why does any person, male or female, pick a substantially younger partner? Maybe to relive their own youth, or to sexually experience a new, fresh faced and exuberant young mind and body. It goes both ways, Sugar Daddies and Mommas (also called cougars, a relative age term), may or may not involve money in the equation. We have some married friends where the woman is a little more than 10 years older than the husband. She met him when she was unhappy with her marriage to a controlling husband. I can't say she intentionally targeted younger men, but when one fell in her sights, the sparks flew.

Anyway, in the sugar baby case I'm familiar with, he (the wealthy man) may or may not have wanted to give up his wife, may not have considered it as practical to do. I presume the sugar baby wanted to get married, but since the man could not give this to her, instead he made the relationship worth it, by buying her a house and giving her expensive gifts. I'm not sure how long the relationship lasted, but my impression was long term, 10 years or longer.

Including the real case, but speaking in general terms, I imagine the woman (the sugar baby in this example) wants a relationship, enters into this relationship because she likes the man, whether it's because he's charming, and possibly attractive, and either hopes to get married, or just have some fun, but the substantial lure is wealth, having a relationship with wealth, taking a shower in wealth for some period of time.

Sadly my impression is that a male would be more likely than a female to enter a relationship like this as the sugar baby and may not be put off by elusive marriage prospects. "More likely" is my qualifier to not label all men in this fashion. As women in general become powerful in society, a process that has been written about and reported on, I suspect the % of male sugar babies will increase substantially.

On the male side I personally know of the equivalent of a male sugar baby, who has spent his life establishing relationships with wealthy women, marrying them, spending substantial portions of their wealth until the money runs out or the relationship crashes and then it's time to move on to the next score. And there have been 2or 3, all had money. I think it runs in the family, lol because he has a young nephew in his 20s who has done the same thing, been attracted and married to one girl who's parents have money. Sure she's a nice attractive girl, and maybe money had nothing to do with it, but he's not a stand on his own two feet kind of guy, and never went to college, yet lives in a house that her Grandmother bought them, so I can't help but believe that wealth made this girl ever so more attractive.

Thanks a lot Huntn.

I think for some sugar babies this kind of relationship where the man buys her the world is something they want to be real. The fall in love with the lifestyle and want it to be forever. In essence, these women fall in love with the fantasy life.

The guy on the other hand, may or may not fall in love. But generally it's more likely for the woman in this case.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

This is the problem with older people. They don't evolve. Old ideas get spewed out which they believe is still right. It's 2015. The world has changed. People do things differently now. Live in the present. Not the past.

I'm an historian by profession. I study the past and how it informs the present.

However, notwithstanding all that, the world I study and live in happens to be the real world, and not some mad fantasy world defined by media representations of celebrities and informed by patently ludicrous values and beliefs.

 

[Hieveryone]

I'm an historian by profession. I study the past and how it informs the present.

However, notwithstanding all that, the world I study and live in happens to be the real world, and not some mad fantasy world defined by media representations of celebrities and informed by patently ludicrous values and beliefs.

Here we go again. Modern values of this generation are "ludicrous"

Ever thought for a second if you were born today you would think differently than you do now?

This generation doesn't think like you. Your ideas are probably 60 years old. You can despise it all you want but nobody younger cares.

You're exactly like people in the past who believed slavery was good the only difference being a different issue.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Thanks a lot Huntn.

I think for some sugar babies this kind of relationship where the man buys her the world is something they want to be real. The fall in love with the lifestyle and want it to be forever. In essence, these women fall in love with the fantasy life.

The guy on the other hand, may or may not fall in love. But generally it's more likely for the woman in this case.

Rubbish. It is increasingly clear from your threads you have very little idea of how women think.

Thus far, you have used words such as 'not uncommon', 'common', 'often' 'generally' and 'more likely' to describe a delusional world, where you insist that what is a transactional relationship is one based on ties of affection and love. This is very unlikely to happen, but not, I'll grant, impossible.

These days, such a relationship, predicated upon an imbalance of power, is highly unlikely in the First World. Yes, you may still find elements of it between younger women from poorer countries when they encounter older, well off men from wealthier countries.

By the way, on the topic of using words such as 'common', 'likely' and 'often' - how likely is it that this thread will find itself unceremoniously padlocked as was the common fate of many of its predecessors?

 

[Hieveryone]

Rubbish. It is increasingly clear from your threads you have very little idea of how women think.

Thus far, you have used words such as 'not uncommon', 'common', 'often' 'generally' and 'more likely' to describe a delusional world, where you inis sit that what is a transactional relationship is one based on ties of affection and love. This is very unlikely to happen, but not, I'll grant, impossible.

These days, such a relationship, predicated upon an imbalance of power, is highly unlikely in the First World. Yes, you may still find elements of it between younger women from poorer countries when they encounter older, well off men from wealthier countries.

By the way, on the topic of using words such as 'common', 'likely' and 'often' - how likely is it that this thread will find itself unceremoniously padlocked as was the common fate of many of its predecessors?

This is patently false. If you knew how the world worked in 2015 and I guarantee you would understand. The sugar baby in huntns story which btw was his real life experience matches with what I've said and discredited all of your ideas and posts. Like I said before, sugar babies can and sometimes do fall in love, which to me is not a comfortable thought. I can't believe you're only talking about semantics of the words I used rather than the actual issue.

 

[Hieveryone]

But then again who is my audience? If I go to a church and ask old people what they thought about sugar babies they'd be appalled.

If I asked a college girl, she'd probably want to be one.

Point is, old thinking has no value in a modern culture.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Here we go again. Modern values of this generation are "ludicrous"

Ever thought for a second if you were born today you would think differently than you do now?

This generation doesn't think like you. Your ideas are probably 60 years old. You can despise it all you want but nobody younger cares.

You're exactly like people in the past who believed slavery was good the only difference being a different issue.

Once again , you are changing what is being discussed. Nowhere have you addressed why an accomplished man of 35 would wish to be a 'sugar daddy' as such a person would be well able to attract women without having to use the lure of money.

Besides, I fail to see how wanting and idealising the lifestyle of a glorified pimp is something typical of the modern generation in any setting. Your posts and threads have long made it clear that you live in a surreal world populated by deranged and delusional ideas which you persist in attempting to persuade those who engage with you represent the real world. They don't.

These days, most women in the first world at least work for a living, and - fortunately - they don't need to conduct or conclude relationships on those terms.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

This is patently false. If you knew how the world worked in 2015 and I guarantee you would understand. The sugar baby in huntns story which btw was his real life experience matches with what I've said and discredited all of your ideas and posts. Like I said before, sugar babies can and sometimes do fall in love, which to me is not a comfortable thought. I can't believe you're only talking about semantics of the words I used rather than the actual issue.

In your posts you consistently confuse the fact of a few proven examples of an occurrence with common practice. And you confuse celebrity lifestyles - which are a construct for public consumption - with how most people really live their lives.

I know people - both men and women - who have married for wealth and position, not love. However, I would not conclude that this is the norm in the western world, just because a number of people do it.

Likewise, undoubtedly 'sugar daddies' exist; however, social changes mean that this is a lot less likely - rather than more likely - to happen in the western word today than might have been the case decades, or centuries ago. Most women work.

But then again who is my audience? If I go to a church and ask old people what they thought about sugar babies they'd be appalled.

If I asked a college girl, she'd probably want to be one.

Point is, old thinking has no value in a modern culture.

I very much doubt that an ambitious female college student would want to be a what you have described as a sugar baby.

However, as a career choice for an attractive looking women from a far poorer country, of course, there are examples we can all cite.

However, I take considerable issue with the idea that people - in this day and age - will willingly choose to enter such relationships, when they have better alternatives, and secondly, that this can be argued as a badge of 'the modern age'. Delusional.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I think you will find you need to be older than 18 to qualify as a sugar daddy.

An awful lot older, agreed.

 

[noisycats]

Thanks a lot Huntn.

I think for some sugar babies this kind of relationship where the man buys her the world is something they want to be real. The fall in love with the lifestyle and want it to be forever. In essence, these women fall in love with the fantasy life.

The guy on the other hand, may or may not fall in love. But generally it's more likely for the woman in this case.

Speaking of falling in love with a fantasy life!

Hook, line, and sinker.

 

[NY Guitarist]

If I asked a college girl, she'd probably want to be one.

Point is, old thinking has no value in a modern culture.

This is a seriously flawed assumption based purely on your own psychological projection onto 'modern' society.

Women are less likely to want to be treated as property that is bought than in ancient times when women were actually considered property, and marriages arranged as such. Society has progressed in the direction of increased independence, so perhaps you're looking at the world through your own filter and want to see it a certain way.

Anyway I'm out, this thread has run it's course.

 

[noisycats]

Like I said before, sugar babies can and sometimes do fall in love, which to me is not a comfortable thought.

HE, is this the real purpose of your post? You aspire to be a sugar daddy, but you are afraid based on some articles (and in fact, reality), that your sugar baby might fall in love with you?

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

 

[Hieveryone]

In your posts you consistently confuse the fact of a few proven examples of an occurrence with common practice. And you confuse celebrity lifestyles - which are a construct for public consumption - with how most people really live their lives.

I know people - both men and women - who have married for wealth and position, not love. However, I would not conclude that this is the norm in the western world, just because a number of people do it.

Likewise, undoubtedly 'sugar daddies' exist; however, social changes mean that this is a lot less likely - rather than more likely - to happen in the western word today than might have been the case decades, or centuries ago. Most women work.



I very much doubt that an ambitious female college student would want to be a what you have described as a sugar baby.

However, as a career choice for an attractive looking women from a far poorer country, of course, there are examples we can all cite.

However, I take considerable issue with the idea that people - in this day and age - will willingly choose to enter such relationships, when they have better alternatives, and secondly, that this can be argued as a badge of 'the modern age'. Delusional.

Further proof that your views on modern society are archaic and cannot be given any credibility.

What's sad is the level of stubbornness and unwillingness to adapt to an ever changing society.

A simple google search shall enlighten old thinking yet here we are having to read opinions that couldn't more wrong and outdated.

Like I said reading your posts on this topic is equivalent to asking a group of senior citizens at an AARP meeting.

 

[bradl]

You didn't hear about the cheating scandal? It was literally all over the news and still is if you just use google.

Basically, what the other guy was trying to say there are plenty of pretty women who just want to hook up with hot guys.

My point was then why does tiger woods pay his 10,000 mistresses with gifts if he could get it for free? He's an attractive guy.

Still no answer.

You assert 10,000, when Woods only had 1. His wife left him, leaving him a single man. He started to date Lindsay Vonn. They just split recently. So where is this "10,000" number you are speaking of?

Again, per forum rules, you made the claim, you must provide citation when called out for it. If not, You know where the report button is, and where the TO corner is as well.

Regardless, what you are seeing shows the worst qualifications a person could have when seeking any type of partner or relationship. How very shallow; but we've come to expect that of you.

BL.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Speaking of falling in love with a fantasy life!

Hook, line, and sinker.

Amen to that, but predictably on a par with all of his previous threads.

The same sorry cycle repeats endlessly, an obsession with wealth, celebrity, money, young women, Wall Street, Tiger Woods, and the delusions of this carefully constructed lifestyle, along with the myriad terms he uses to try to describe them and persuade the thread this is is the way human relationships are conducted in the early 21st century.

This is a seriously flawed assumption based purely on your own psychological projection onto 'modern' society.

Women are less likely to want to be treated as property that is bought than in ancient times when women were actually considered property, and marriages arranged as such. Society has progressed in the direction of increased independence, so perhaps you're looking at the world through your own filter and want to see it a certain way.

Anyway I'm out, this thread has run it's course.

Agree completely. The economic and social changes in the position of women - better education, economic independence, access to reliable and affordable birth control, have transformed the position of women in the western world, and increasingly, in parts of Asia.

These tired old assumptions that the OP trots out with the predictability of a metronome are the last resort of delusional fantasy, one that he persists in believing reflects some state of reality.

Anyway, I'm seeing a nice, fat padlock looming somewhere in this thread's future…...

HE, is this the real purpose of your post? You aspire to be a sugar daddy, but you are afraid based on some articles (and in fact, reality), that your sugar baby might fall in love with you?

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Amen to that. However, I still don't get why the Op think s that anyone in their 30s would want to even aspire to this.

Further proof that your views on modern society are archaic and cannot be given any credibility.

What's sad is the level of stubbornness and unwillingness to adapt to an ever changing society.

A simple google search shall enlighten old thinking yet here we are having to read opinions that couldn't more wrong and outdated.

Like I said reading your posts on this topic is equivalent to asking a group of senior citizens at an AARP meeting.

No, what is sad is your deluded fantasy that the world actually lives by the dictates of a completely constructed and fabricated world - but one designed for public consumption - inhabited by celebrities.

You assert 10,000, when Woods only had 1. His wife left him, leaving him a single man. He started to date Lindsay Vonn. They just split recently. So where is this "10,000" number you are speaking of?

Again, per forum rules, you made the claim, you must provide citation when called out for it. If not, You know where the report button is, and where the TO corner is as well.

Regardless, what you are seeing shows the worst qualifications a person could have when seeking any type of partner or relationship. How very shallow; but we've come to expect that of you.

BL.

Agreed.

 

[D.T.]

I very much doubt that an ambitious female college student would want to be a what you have described as a sugar baby.

This is a seriously flawed assumption based purely on your own psychological projection onto 'modern' society.

Women are less likely to want to be treated as property that is bought than in ancient times when women were actually considered property, and marriages arranged as such. Society has progressed in the direction of increased independence, so perhaps you're looking at the world through your own filter and want to see it a certain way.

Anyway I'm out, this thread has run it's course.

A friend and colleague has a very attractive - by anyone's standards - daughter in her 20's that's going to the west coast to take a position on the Amazon engineering team (mobile division). She'd laugh this kid into tears over such a silly assertion. My wife - a CMU grad, who ran a $250M division of the company who acquired my #2 would've done the same.

As usual, a thread by the OP has careened off into an inane babble fest

 

[mobilehaathi]

As usual, a thread by the OP has careened off into an inane babble fest

Firmly entrenched from the start.

 

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
Looks like this thread is off the rails. Locking