Sugar Daddies and sugar angels

dr.fuzzenstein

nm wrote: »

So many assumptions.

You have no idea what they're thinking. It all looks extremely obvious and straight forward to me and I'm positive it's the same to both parties involved.

I'm sure it's a perfectly satisfactory arrangement for the kind of person that values money and posessions over love and happiness. Of course if anyone wants to be on either side of this transaction that's fine by me.
But to say we have no idea what they're thinking? C'mon, you kidding me? He wants arm candy and blowjobs and she wants money and maybe fame.

nxbyveromdwjpg

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But to say we have no idea what they're thinking? C'mon, you kidding me? He wants arm candy and blowjobs and she wants money and maybe fame.

Sure, so where is this deceit or self deceit you were talking about both parties engaging in?
You're contradicting your previous post.

dr.fuzzenstein

nm wrote: »

Sure, so where is this deceit or self deceit you were talking about both parties engaging in?
You're contradicting your previous post.

It's more themselves that they're deceiving.

KomradeBishop

I can't help but feel that monetization of sex/relationships in any form seems quite seedy, but if this is what they want then it's their choice, and it should be allowed (same way prostitution should be legal).

Not in any rush to talk it up or speak positively of it mind...

I think monetization of sex/relationships carries a fairly complex set of moral issues with it (depending upon specific circumstances), which ties into economic moral issues, given the kinds of social dynamics it could create if it became universally accepted; so my initial thoughts, are that there should always be some amount social pressure against it, in the form of judgement (but never in the form of laws).

dr.fuzzenstein

Absolutely. I may not entirely agree with it (though I might change my mind if I ever turn out to be a 70 year old billionaire), but in the end it is up to the individual.

Amica

discussion seems to have focussed more on the sugar angel's side (she's only with him for his money) and the possible lack of morals/self respect etc related to it...is it more despicable to be with somebody for their money than for their looks?

dr.fuzzenstein

Amica wrote: »

discussion seems to have focussed more on the sugar angel's side (she's only with him for his money) and the possible lack of morals/self respect etc related to it...is it more despicable to be with somebody for their money than for their looks?

I wouldn't go as far as to say despicable. In the end everyone has to make up their own mind:

Amica

You totally missed my point. I didn't ask if it's despicable - what I meant is: is it worse to be with somebody for their money than for their looks?

ancapailldorcha

Amica wrote: »

You totally missed my point. I didn't ask if it's despicable - what I meant is: is it worse to be with somebody for their money than for their looks?

Is it viable to be with someone long term just based on their looks. The novelty will wear off at some point whereas being with someone for their money involves having a better lifestyle and time to yourself while they're at work.

Amica

Is it viable to be with someone long term just based on their looks. The novelty will wear off at some point whereas being with someone for their money involves having a better lifestyle and time to yourself while they're at work.

if you only have a life expectancy of ten years then it's not really an issue. Whether the charm of good looks/money wears off or not depends on the person etc and you really just avoided my question. Is being with somebody for their money in some way worse than being with someone for their good looks?

ancapailldorcha

Amica wrote: »

if you only have a life expectancy of ten years then it's not really an issue. Whether the charm of good looks/money wears off or not depends on the person etc and you really just avoided my question. Is being with somebody for their money in some way worse than being with someone for their good looks?

Only a subset of the wealthy are elderly. When I lived in Manchester for example, I noticed that a lot of girls seemed to only want a footballer.

Amica

...still avoiding my question

ancapailldorcha

It's not really my place to pass judgement on people who get into relationships for unorthodox reasons. It's a subjective question asking which is worse.

skallywag

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The guy is deceiving himself into thinking that she actually likes him...

What makes you think that the guy really thinks this, and does not actually see the situation for what it really is?

Amica

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's not really my place to pass judgement on people who get into relationships for unorthodox reasons. It's a subjective question asking which is worse.

well I wasn't looking an objective answer! :pac: Just people's opinions. Was that your roundabout way of saying iyo neither are better or worse?

ancapailldorcha

Amica wrote: »

well I wasn't looking an objective answer! :pac: Just people's opinions. Was that your roundabout way of saying iyo neither are better or worse?

Depends on the specific cases but coneceptually, neither seems to be "worse" than the other.

LordNorbury

There have always been women who dated/married or sought out men for their income and to obtain access to a lifestyle that would not be possible when dating one of us mere mortals who is tolling away in the middle class.

I can think of at least two "celebrity models" in Ireland who have very obviously been in relationships with their respective other halves, because of the money they earn, and one of these wags is still in a relationship with the rich guy she is in a relationship and this couple are well known on the Irish "celebrity" scene. The other model was in a relationship with a guy old enough to be her father and it is obvious that money/wealth was the attraction. Both women I will not name but everyone knows who these two women are, both women are well known Irish models.

If men with more money than sense want to lavish money on young women in college in exchange for sexual favours, then leave them to it is my view, once it is two consenting adults. Yes it is basically a somewhat convoluted form of prostitution in some way, but if we are to have an issue with this in the legal sense, then we would also need to ban all attractive women chasing wealthy men and that is just what this is, only that instead of the eye lashes being fluttered across the VIP bar in Crystal Nightclub, the sales pitch is happening online, other than that, there is no difference whatsoever here that I can see.

dr.fuzzenstein

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Depends on the specific cases but coneceptually, neither seems to be "worse" than the other.

Agree. Being with someone purely for their money or their looks, one is as shallow as the other.
If you look at a lot of TV programs, there seem to be plenty of people who are perfectly happy to lead utterly meaningless lives defined by nothing but money, glamour, fame and bling. Those are not the qualities that painted the Sistine chapel, composed Beethoven's 5th (aka da da da dam) or put man on the moon, but hey, we can't all be contributors of value or meaning to the human race. One does however worry that this is becoming more prevalent.

Littlekittylou

D'Agger wrote: »

You're right, less of these well thought out opinions & more slurs please

What you think saying that is going to change my mind or the truth? Sometimes the truth is pithy.

Strauss has has been tried three times for rape the charges came to nothing but he admitted sexually harassing a female journalist. He still has to face more music. This is going on now.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/22/dominique-strauss-kahn-lille-pimping-trial

The facts that have been revealed are nasty.

The scandal didn’t lie with the fact Strauss-Kahn had slept with prostitutes,” explains Poirier, “but that he hadn’t paid for their services. Others [paid for him], hoping they would get favours in return when he became president, and that was the shocking thing – a clear conflict of interests.”Strauss-Kahn remains, she says, magnificently unrepentant

Sometimes the truth is blunt and pithy. These people are sleazy and keep nasty company. Would you really TRUST a sugar baby? Honestly? Or a sugar Daddy? I know I wouldn't.

They end up trying to screw each other over so everyone gets screwed over! Corruption loss of values and human roadkill.

I repeat they are what is wrong with humanity.

My pithy frank opinion is no slur.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

Strauss-Kahn hasn't been convicted of any crime. Therefore, no defamatory statements please. This site doesn't need a lawsuit.

batistuta9

Amica wrote: »

You totally missed my point. I didn't ask if it's despicable - what I meant is: is it worse to be with somebody for their money than for their looks?

you can't say worse as it's going to be subjective but i would certainly think it's culturally less accepted to be with someone solely for money

Amica

batistuta9 wrote: »

you can't say worse as it's going to be subjective but i would certainly think it's culturally less accepted to be with someone solely for money

culturally less accepted - I'm not really sure whether you're right but I would find this strange given that there's no real ethical difference

batistuta9

Amica wrote: »

culturally less accepted - I'm not really sure whether you're right but I would find this strange given that there's no real ethical difference

if people think a person is in a relationship for money, they'll call them all sorts, golddigger, prostitute, user.

if they think a person is in a relationship for looks, there's generally an acknowledgement of the other persons looks ("could you blame them" type responses), then speculation there's some other quality as well or they wouldn't stick around as 'beauty is only skin deep'

I think it's possible that the perception of the relative acceptability is different with each gender.

Men might think being with a man for money is worse than being with a woman for beauty because they're the shallow target in that scenario, and vice versa.

I wouldn't contemplate being with a man who didn't like me and value me for myself and I don't understand how anyone would settle for less than that, male or female. I certainly wouldn't be able to be with someone I didn't like, respect and value for their specialness.

That said if everyone is getting what they want and can live with the devils bargain, then go for it. I'd find it hard not to judge anyone who enters that arrangement as being superficial and vacuous though, either gender.

Amica

I think it's possible that the perception of the relative acceptability is different with each gender.
Men might think being with a man for money is worse than being with a woman for beauty because they're the shallow target in that scenario, and vice versa.

I think you're right on that one

dr.fuzzenstein

Candie wrote: »

I think it's possible that the perception of the relative acceptability is different with each gender.

Men might think being with a man for money is worse than being with a woman for beauty because they're the shallow target in that scenario, and vice versa.

I wouldn't contemplate being with a man who didn't like me and value me for myself and I don't understand how anyone would settle for less than that, male or female. I certainly wouldn't be able to be with someone I didn't like, respect and value for their specialness.

That said if everyone is getting what they want and can live with the devils bargain, then go for it. I'd find it hard not to judge anyone who enters that arrangement as being superficial and vacuous though, either gender.

A lot of people will have rude awakenings, when reality fails to meet the dream. Having a high maintenance girlfriend who likes you for your financial qualities rather than your beergut, bald head and wrinkles is a lot like owning a Ferrari or very old vintage car. The idea of owning them is a lot nicer than actually owning them. The dream of driving along in them and being admired is soon replaced by astronomical maintenance bills, patchy reliability and a big thirst for fuel. It's OK if you can piss away a fortune on one and have staff to maintain it.

ancapailldorcha

Candie wrote: »

I think it's possible that the perception of the relative acceptability is different with each gender.

Men might think being with a man for money is worse than being with a woman for beauty because they're the shallow target in that scenario, and vice versa.

I wouldn't contemplate being with a man who didn't like me and value me for myself and I don't understand how anyone would settle for less than that, male or female. I certainly wouldn't be able to be with someone I didn't like, respect and value for their specialness.

That said if everyone is getting what they want and can live with the devils bargain, then go for it. I'd find it hard not to judge anyone who enters that arrangement as being superficial and vacuous though, either gender.

Success seems to be more and more defined by material possessions these days. I've noticed it more and more since I moved to the UK though that could be partly explained by recent technological events. Family and being social in general seem to be more of a priority in Ireland. I could be talking complete nonsense there though.

Amica

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

A lot of people will have rude awakenings, when reality fails to meet the dream. Having an old rich man who likes you for your pretty face and hot body rather than your lack of education/resources/ personality is a lot like having a modelling contract with a big agency. The idea of having it is a lot nicer than actually having it. The dream of receiving the best of everything and being admired is soon replaced by the pressure to stay thin, economic and emotional insecurity and a big workout/beauty regime probably with some anti-aging plastic surgery (Botox and the like). It's OK if you can piss away a lifetime on one and have other admirers to fall back on just in case

just to compare

dr.fuzzenstein

Amica wrote: »

just to compare

That works for me. I hang around a lot in Motors. Might just color my metaphors.
And women, just like old cars do occasionally boil over.

newport2

Amica wrote: »

discussion seems to have focussed more on the sugar angel's side (she's only with him for his money) and the possible lack of morals/self respect etc related to it...is it more despicable to be with somebody for their money than for their looks?

I think nature intended both traits to be attractive, man ends up with more attractive children, woman ends up with man who can provide for her and her children. It's really modern society that has raised the question of whether this is right or not, mainly due to the fact that people like to think that they are less shallow than they really are. We are driven by a lot of things that we don't necessarily make rational decisions about.

I suppose you could argue that he earned his money, whereas she was born with her looks. So at least his wealth is somewhat a reflection of who he is - perhaps less shallow to be attracted to this although perceived by society to be more so? But that's simplistic rubbish, money is not necessarily a good reflection, a lot is not honestly earned or perhaps inherited.

I don't think there's any answer to your question, just an opinion. To be with someone solely because of their looks or money is wrong IMO. But there's nothing wrong with being initially attracted to someone for these traits.