Seeking Arrangement: College Students Using 'Sugar Daddies'

Post Reply New Topic

You definitely disagree with me here, and that's your right: Thomas Jefferson put the First Amendment into the Bill of Rights for that same reason. To this day, it's still 100% legal to call any politician a moron. But let me present mind-teasers of my own.

A homeowner misses a mortgage payment. The bank sends a warning letter and/or a "past due" notice. A homeowner misses a mortgage payment enough times. The bank forecloses the home, destroys the homeowner's credit rating, and dumps the homeowner's furniture out on the sidewalk.

A husband forgets a wedding anniversary date (read: forgets to make a romance payment). The wife withholds the sex for a week. A husband forgets the anniversary date enough times. The wife divorces him, and takes the house, the custody of the kids, the car, and put the husband on the street.

If you don't see the parallelism, then I rest my case. If you do, then QED: all, or at least most, romantic relationships are a mutual business exchange of romance and sex.

To avoid hijacking the thread, let's get back to the original topic. I think the reason why sugar daddy relationships are as taboo as they are, is that they scare the mainstream public with how honest and straightforward they are. NTs, and some aspies, delude themselves and deny reality all the time. But when something like this comes on the scene, it scares them. So, the topic ends up shrouded in taboo and shame. But denial can only last so long.

Hmms, if banana=business arrangement and television=business arrangement, then banana=television.

My mind has been blown.



That was so scary I couldn't even get myself to quote the picture. What's wrong with people?

I don't have a problem with this.

Much of the criticism of this practice seems to come from middle-aged women who wasted their most marriageable years playing with men and then ended up alone.

They enjoyed the female advantage while in their youth, but now resent the advantage that rich old men have.

Oooh, shaming women having different opinions from yours by calling them old unmarriageable hags.

The antebellum South called...

Well, the "denial" of sex in your specific hypothetical likely wouldn't be because pre-defined "terms of payment" haven't been met,
but because women, unlike men, often *cannot* engage sexually with someone they are angry with/emotionally-hurt by, as much as (some) men like to pretend it's some enraged, bitter "denial" to "punish" them (a "warning" letter? really?).

This is really the more important point:
NO PSYCHOLOGICALLY-HEALTHY PERSON VIEWS THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN AS THAT OF JOHNS AND HOOKERS.

It's not even of rational sense.
Both people work, both people benefit from both working,
both people desire romantic affection from which both benefit,
both people desire sexual affection from which both benefit.

The above describes the statistical vast majority of heterosexual relationships,
so I'm failing utterly to see what it has to do with this-or-that-sex-act-for-this-or-that-amount-of-money scenario.

I miss the good old days when paying for college by "whoring yourself out to the man" was just a metaphor for working retail

I worked in retail for 28 months; 25 of em were at Cr@pMart I mean WalMart & I never heard that analogy but I like it

You have nerves of steel.

I worked for 3 months in retail, in a women's clothing store, two years ago, and still haven't recovered fully.
I'd go hide in the bathroom from everything, and they'd send someone to find me.

If not johns and hookers, then what else? Especially considering that the husband must meet certain TOS* and SLA* before he's allowed to have sex with the wife. If he doesn't, then the wife is not in the mood, or worse, he has to sleep on the couch. Now, If this relationship is not johns and hookers, then it's gotta be at least an outsourcing agreement (yes, like the call centers, see below). And in your scenario, why would the woman be angry? Because her requirements haven't been met? Or something else?, but whatever it is, I have no idea. Even if a woman cannot engage in sex when she's upset, her husband is still being punished for not being romantic when required.

A man cannot have sex with himself, and one's hand can only go so far. A woman cannot be romantic with herself, and having a candlelit dinner alone looks bad. So each of them outsources what they want to the other party, and pay in what they can give. Each party enforces certain TOS and SLA. A woman might require remembering anniversaries, gifts for special occasions, and a monthly romantic dinner just because. A man might require weekly sex. If one party doesn't meet the requirements, then the relationship will go on a path to breakup. In cases of sugar daddies, all terms are very upfront, explicit, and straightforward. In traditional relationships, not so much, but they're still there.

I would be more convinced by your argument if you used persuasive examples and/or analogies to argue your point, rather than bold all-uppercase text. So I don't find it very believable.
_________
TOS and SLA stands for Terms of Service and Service Level Agreement, respectively. In case of romantic relationships, these refer to remembering anniversaries, going to romantic places, and buying thoughtful gifts.

Men and women, for whom affection both sexual and romantic, and income are jointly earned and given.

I don't know whose relationship you're describing, but it's a very dysfunctional one when the relationship is defined by the woman's body and her "allowance" of his using it.

So...women's sexual psychology makes them no different from hookers, by virtue of it not being men's sexual psychology.
Nice.

Other than the observation that women have different requirements for engaging sexually with a partner,
you've yet to actually identify any difference between men and women in terms of things they want and give in relationships,
let alone made the case for it being an explicit sex-for-something transaction.

The "requirements" for her to engage sexually, yes, but they are not "hers" if by that you mean a deliberately-thought out and spoken aloud checklist to be completed by the man for the reward of sex. Women quite-simply must be in a particular state of emotional happiness to engage in sex (I would say, normally, surely you don't want women to just offer up their bodies for men to use indifferently to how they feel, but since you seem to think that the natural way of things, I'll refrain from that incredulous query) and that state is not well-achieved if men aren't very affectionate or attentive, both quite-naturally conducive to causing anger, as are all actions which indicate a lack of overall caring.

It would so-appear.
If you view de-facto others' undesirable emotional states, resultant of your own choices toward them, as somehow punishing YOU, I guess that would make sense. But whereas you see "denial" and "punishment", those with an actual clue about human relationships see "cause" and "effect": if you want a woman to engage emotionally with you, try acting engaged emotionally with her. Although in all reality, you shouldn't have to act, it should come naturally, or else you should end the relationship.

Both men and women want both sexual and romantic affection in relationships.
What part of this is hard for you? Is it acknowledging men as romantic beings or women as sexual beings? You have no trouble incessantly arguing for those qualities as being paramount in the other sex, so why not vice versa? Are you under the illusion the sexes are wholly-different species?

Yes, I can imagine the health-state of a relationship wherein there is explicit this-pretense of romantic interest for that-pretense of sexual interest. Hope there are no kids involved, cause that one's gonna end ugly, and soon.

People in romantic relationships usually expect romantic affection, yes, both sexes.

People in romantic relationships usually expect sexual affection, yes, both sexes.

As I said before, if there is a literal tit-for-tat exchanging of unfelt romantic "favors" for unfelt sexual ones, THAT is the path to breakup... or likely the end of a very bitter one long-ago begun, I'd say.

I'm very sorry that is your impression of heterosexual relationships. Really, I truly am. That sounds like a very distorted and psychologically-damaging view of the world.

You mean my "point" that both men and women require both romantic and sexual affection in relationships,
and that a view of heterosexual relationships as exemplifying prostitution indicates an extremely toxic and misguided mindset?
If that really needs argumentation, then you're right- I'm at a complete loss for words. Try telling a therapist that- they're actually-trained to address that kind of...vitriol.

ValentineWiggin is doing an excellent job of handing you your -ass- on a platter so I won't distract from her excellent work. I would like to rephrase your example so it makes more sense:

A husband forgets a wedding anniversary date. Due to his inconsideration and forgetfulness, the wife feels unappreciated and disrespected in the life that they have built up and share together. Being unable to articulate her feelings of disappointment and resentment in a healthy way, she passive aggressively denies him affection, which she knows is one way that he understands and communicates love. Of course, this hurts him more than it helps the situation because it's likely he does not understand what he did wrong and just feels left alone because his wife is angry with him and seeks to hurt him.

If despite years of marriage counseling, marriage help seminars and books and open communication about the issue, the husband continues to be forgetful about important dates and the wife continues to feel injured and slighted by his disrespect and lack of ability to make his own spouse a priority in his life, she will divorce him to refocus on being self-sufficient as a human being without needing to care if someone else considers her important enough to remember. Eventually, she may find someone who is better suited for her. The husband may not mind this so much because his wife was passive aggressive and manipulative, always trying to hurt him instead of discussing her feelings with him.

It is likely that unless she's a drug addict, she will become the residential parent of their children in their nowadays very standard joint custody (or Shared Parental Responsibility) court agreement and he will contribute child support to offset the expenses of housing the children while having visitation and full involvement in his children's lives (that is, if he doesn't forget about them, too). This is the 21st Century so they likely have two vehicles so he will take his and she will take hers. Whoever has residential custody of the kids will get to continue to live in the house for the children's best interests. If she cannot afford the payments, it's possible that they will agree to sell the house and split the profit 50/50.

In all the lawbooks I've had to rummage through over the years, not once have I ever run across a term for marriage dissolution that reads "failure to pay adequate romance payments".

Last edited by wefunction on 12 Aug 2011, 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

ValentineWiggin and wefunction:



You are both way more patient than I will ever be, and you can articulate everything I think.

Thank you.

LOL @ ^
Good friend of my parents is a lawyer specializing in divorces. Thats a fairy tale divorce if i ever heard one. Heres a joke he told me. Wanna know why its called alimony? Cause the women kept saying " I wan all the money all the money all the money allthemoney allymoney alimoney alimony!"

Aspie1, it seems to me that you are considering only the actions taken, and the magnitude of the actions taken, but not the motivations or objectives. One action is motivated by love and designed to elicit positive change in another person, compared to another, superficially similar action taken purely for personal gain. They are not functionally or morally equivalent.

Last edited by scubasteve on 12 Aug 2011, 9:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

Haha hahahahahaha! I make more than my ex-husband. Still funny?

You fine people have restored my faith in L&D.