What Sugar Daddies Are REALLY Buying: Freedom

What Sugar Daddies Are REALLY Buying: Freedom

I have a viscerally negative reaction to stories like this.

It’s a tale of a journalist who explored a Sugar Daddy website for research, going on a bunch of dates with men who’d give her $5000/month to be their part-time escort/girlfriend.

The men described here are the worst of the worst: selfish, entitled, emotionally vacant, sex-driven, insecure, tone-deaf, and, of course, filthy rich.

There’s nothing wrong with being rich. I’m working on it as a side project myself.

But when your money insulates you from how real people connect (ahem, Romney), you can’t be too surprised when people find you distasteful.

when your looks or your money are your greatest forms of currency, it’s no surprise when your relationship goes south.

These men, as you’ll soon read, are undoubtedly distasteful.

HOWEVER, before you get all high and mighty and bash these guys, don’t forget:

There is no such thing as a Sugar Daddy site without WOMEN who ALSO seek such prostitute-like arrangements.

So if there’s a man out there who thinks he can buy favors and freedom with his money, it’s because there’s a woman out there who can be bought.

From the first line, “How different is this from regular dating?”, the article. reminds us that there’s always some sort of exchange in relationships.

The most common one – as evidenced by The Millionaire Matchmaker and its various copycats – is rich men/beautiful women.

And when your looks or your money are your greatest forms of currency, it’s no surprise when your relationship goes south.

0
0

Join 5 Million Readers

And the thousands of women I've helped find true love. Sign up for weekly updates for help understanding men.

I hate spam as much as you do, therefore I will never sell, rent, or give away your email address.

Join our conversation (37 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 31
    Fusee

    @ Karmic Equation #30: I appreciate your clarification but it does not change the fact that you seem to refuse to understand me and insist in saying that I use (first time) sex as a bargaining chip. I’m really tired of clarifying that I do not (if I did I would gladly say so, but as I repeatedly wrote in above comments, I do not, and I believe that it would be ineffective anyway given the non-substantial and impermanent nature of a “commitment”), and I suspect it will not help as you appear totally stuck on that conviction. So be it! I’m done : )
     
    Thank you, Evan, for trying again @ 31. Being in the position of being misunderstood and falsely portrayed makes me understand the extent of your patience with people who simply refuse to understand your opinion or advice no matter how clear and detailled the explanation is.

  2. 32
    Karmic Equation

    @EMK 31

    “So holding out for a commitment is not to make a guy commit; it’s to scare away any guy who has absolutely no intentions of committing. That way, she doesn’t sleep with a man who will break her heart. It’s a protection mechanism to weed out players; it’s not a bargaining chip.”

    I understand where you’re coming from and phrased this way I tend to agree with you more than I disagree.

    The disagreement is that if a woman’s good-guy-dar and powers of observation work properly, she should have been able to identify the players (and pass them over) before she has to put in any effort into weeding them out. The players shouldn’t have gotten past her “he’s a player gate” to the point where she would even consider them for a relationship. If he does get past her defenses, then something else has already gone awry and whatever that something else is needs to be fixed first.

    It’s all a matter of perspective. Your perspective, imho, unintentionally, puts a woman in “victim mode” — she needs to protect herself from being hurt; this protects her from being a victim of those player dudes. My perspective empowers women. If she thinks of giving [first time] sex as her super power (“bargaining chip” – but super power sounds so much better), would she really waste that power on unworthy men? I would bet not. Instead she would qualify the men better, i.e., make sure he’s consistent, make sure he’s kind, make sure he’s fill-in-the-blank, before she gives it to him. And when she does, it’s a choice she made as opposed a test he’s passed. How empowering is that? For both the woman and the man? He’s not being “shit-tested” and she’s making a proactive, not reactive, choice. She chose him and, if she qualified him properly, he should be good to her.

    @Fusee 33

    Not sure why you think we are disagreeing. Just because you don’t perceive what you’re doing the way I perceive, doesn’t mean that you’re not doing it the way I perceive it. OTOH, just because I perceive that you’re doing it that way, doesn’t mean you are. AND I’m not knocking for doing it the way I perceive you to be doing it. You’re doing it right, either way–my way or your way! We have no disagreement on the process. We’re just disagreeing on the *perception* of the process. My perception is that you empowered yourself.

    1. 32.1
      Evan Marc Katz

      What you’re not acknowledging, Karmic, is that not all women can handle the consequences of sleeping with men without commitment. Just cause YOU can doesn’t mean it’s as easy for other women.

      So you think you’re using your flawless good-guy-dar, but other women have found that:

      a) their good-guy-dar doesn’t work so well
      b) even if it does work well most of the time, she’d rather not be on pins and needles hoping that the man she slept with turns into a boyfriend. She set herself up for this feeling by sleeping with him without commitment.

      So, just because YOU can date like a guy, sleep with someone, and not worry too much if it’s going to get serious (and I’m right there with you), since many women CAN’T pull this off, their best tool is to insist on commitment BEFORE sex. This doesn’t make them victims. It makes them smart because they’ve found a way to handle the emotionally dicey proposition of uncommitted sex.

      Just got this email from a former Inner Circle client fifteen minutes ago. Here’s what she said:

      “And waiting to have sex until exclusivity? My god, he made me think I made him wait a year, but I have to tell you, I think that was so important. And I can tell it made him think differently
      (better) about me because I made him wait. He recently invited me to spend Thanksgiving with him in Coronado at the family of one of his best friends; and told me he’s never invited a girl before to this.”

      You may not need this, Karmic, but it’s incredibly effective AND empowering for women who don’t want to worry about what’s going to happen with the guy who just left her bedroom.

  3. 33
    Fusee

    My “superpower” is not when I open myself up to physical intimacy for the first time, or any time for that matter.
     
    My superpower consists in my intuitive ability of making my wonderful man feel so good about himself, life, and the prospect of a life with him and me together that he does not even think that much about sex anymore. 
     
    We got there before second base.

  4. 34
    judy

    EMK – 35.  I agree with you on that. Here is a statement made by a man I know “She was okay just to have sex with.  But I really would not introduce HER to my family and friends”. 
    Yes, some of us, myself included, can not do commitment-free sex.  The sex act without love just becomes bonking and it is not enjoyable.  This might sound really prudish but the truth is that, for certain women, having and sharing orgasms or pleasure just does not come (pardon the pun) without feeling safe in a relationship.
    Fusée 36 – He won’t think that much about sex any more? Hm.  I believe you. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>