Sugar Daddies and sugar angels

A Primal Nut

There are some people who are attracted to that kind of thing; not just the money and the gifts; but attracted to the other person because that person is rich and successful. Would they be with that person if they wasn't rich? No. But then again the other person wouldn't be with her if she wasn't beautiful. But that doesn't mean they don't love each other. In the same way some people are driven to be attracted to people because of their looks or personality, some people are attracted to a person who is rich, successful, famous, etc.

OK, in Hugh Hefner's case and extreme cases like that; of course there is no love involved there; but in less extreme cases; it's not exactly like that. It's not like they think "Oh, if I marry this guy I'll never have to work again, and I'll have lots of nice holidays, etc, so they get married even though they don't love the other person. In some cases (e.g. Hefner) it's like that but usually it's not that simple.

Radiosonde

Wibbs wrote: »

That would entirely depend on the company they're in and how they come across. In a room full of hair shirt begrudging types they'd go down like a lead balloon, whereas in a group of interested people who might also be on their level in society they'd go over well. If they're boastful then nope, but if they're just sharing experiences then that's a very different thing. Patriarchy? Oh oh, here we go... I can damn near write the script of what is likely to follow when that word gets bandied about.

You're just setting up silly binaries. Other people's holiday stories are dull, at least the ones about good holidays (as even the lowliest Hollywood hack knows, conflict is the lifeblood of a good story). Some knobs seem to convince themselves that swapping uneventful stories about holiday homes in France or backpacking in Thailand are somehow riveting, but then leisure travel is a very much fetishized activity these days.

There's a huge difference between a braying loadsamoney yuppie in red braces and someone who through the sweat of their brow and intelligence got off their arse and built something solid like a company, product, organisation or whatever. I've met heads of non profits that essentially worked for very little and weren't wealthy that had this charisma that Beks mentions.

You're just trying to rewrite someone else's post now, to remove the offending clichés, and, once again, setting up a binary between the "loadsamoney" type and the (no doubt 'classier') command-the-room-gogetter. Let's face it: anyone who thinks of themselves in those terms is going to be a godawful prick (and yes, I'm confident these powerful man fantasies are intimately bound up with a patriarchal ideology, however unconscious).

Wibbs

Radiosonde wrote: »

You're just setting up silly binaries. Other people's holiday stories are dull,

To you. Don't make the mistake of assuming everyone else thinks as you do.

Let's face it: anyone who thinks of themselves in those terms is going to be a godawful prick

Who said they thought of themselves in those terms. You know it is possible that people can be a "go getter" as part of their personality and it's not an ego thing?

(and yes, I'm confident these powerful man fantasies are intimately bound up with a patriarchal ideology, however unconscious).

Yep best I switch off now...

bb1234567

Ive thought about this too, but what about people who overlook somebody's physical attractiveness , or lack thereof , because they are attracted to their personality and still date them despite little or no sexual attraction?This is similar but in this case they're attracted to their money. How is that any different?

Sleepy

Radiosonde wrote: »

Well, no, because people who prattle on about their foreign adventures or the delicious meals they ate are widely-regarded as boring twats (regardless of how much they earn). It's like what one poster says above about "go-getters" who "command the room": without touching on the ugly patriarchal gender notions underlying her comments, the go-getter type is a much ridiculed cliche, typified by the reviled yuppie of the 1980s.

Wow, you really made some assumptions there...

My point was that the wealthy can afford to have experiences that the rest of us may not be able to (or simply to have more of them). As Wibbs pointed out, if these experiences are related in a bragging loadsamoney fashion, of course it's going to make the person seem obnoxious. A self deprecating anecdote about an amusing spill when skiing / snowboarding / surfing etc. makes for good conversation imo.

The opportunity afforded by wealth isn't limited to travel though... it could have been the opportunity afforded to those with wealth to study utterly useless, yet fascinating, subjects in university. Again, giving a personal example, I'd find someone who's had the opportunity to study etymology an interesting person to converse with (even though I wouldn't consider it a useful qualification in a job applicant).

TBH, most of us in Ireland have an advantage over much of the world's population in this regard: our nation's comparative wealth affords us the opportunity to obtain a formal third level education and the leisure time to pursue informal education via the internet, libraries etc.

You seem blind to the fact that other people's opinions as to what constitutes interesting conversation are as valid as yours however. Again, personally speaking, I enjoy hearing about others holidays (particularly the good ones) yet, like Wibbs, the mere mention of the words like "patriarchy" make me assume the speaker is either a crashing bore or has a chip on their shoulder...

Sleepy

bb1234567 wrote: »

Ive thought about this too, but what about people who overlook somebody's physical attractiveness , or lack thereof , because they are attracted to their personality and still date them despite little or no sexual attraction? This is similar but in this case they're attracted to their money. How is that any different?

Because for some odd reason, people are less jealous of attributes of other's personalities than they are of their talents, physical attributes or assets.

Amica

Radiosonde wrote: »

and yes, I'm confident these powerful man fantasies are intimately bound up with a patriarchal ideology, however unconscious

and people who try to shame others into silence are...what?

claudiasan

Looking for a life partner, I have always dream for a person who is caring well groomed and well educated. But truly speaking never even thought of a money factor ever. But once got involved with someone and just after getting involved in a relationship, I noticed her trying to pin point things why do you live here, why don't have that etc.
Then noticed her talking to someone on phone and upon further investigations found that she was now involved with someone else who had better financial conditions. I was not so well informed of family law, so I decided to talk to a lawyer instead of messing around with them to sort the matter. Lawyer helped me get rid of that relationship which left me with nothing but just a few bad memories.

Roquentin

we are all prostitutes

claudiasan

Roquentin wrote: »

we are all prostitutes

Don't mean to say that all women are like that. Ofcourse every man is born from a woman so respect for women is there. Just expressed my experience.

dr.fuzzenstein

Roquentin wrote: »

we are all prostitutes

I guess in a way we all have our price. And you have to wonder where the limit it. Where do you draw the line?
Personally I haven't found out for myself. Nobody's trying to buy me. Well, if I can't be free, I can be cheap...

claudiasan

eviltwin wrote: »

Plenty of people in so called real relationships get zero emotional support from their partner. In an ideal world you'd get someone amazing who filled your needs and who you actually loved as well and the feeling would be mutual and all that but it doesn't always work out that way. And some people just don't want the emotional attachment, they get all that from friends or family.

Agreed!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I joined one for the lol, just before the late late show special. The ugliest creepiest guys will message you, and it's like being at a virtual cattle mart. Some old dude from America, 72 years old, crass vulgar looking suit, offered to fly me out to America (because of the recession he only only flies first class now instead of having his own jet :rolleyes: ) so seedy and its basically prostitution

Roquentin

if this is prostitution so is every relationship or marriage. how does this differ from a standard relationship? the trade is the same. the man gives the woman something and vice versa. its just its on a website. its no different than any online dating website its just what happens (the trade) is made abundantly clear.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

This is true. I give the luckiest man in ireland blowjobs and he buys me shoes.

beks101

Radiosonde wrote: »

You're just trying to rewrite someone else's post now, to remove the offending clichés, and, once again, setting up a binary between the "loadsamoney" type and the (no doubt 'classier') command-the-room-gogetter. Let's face it: anyone who thinks of themselves in those terms is going to be a godawful prick (and yes, I'm confident these powerful man fantasies are intimately bound up with a patriarchal ideology, however unconscious).

Just catching up on this thread.

Patriarchy my hole. People are attracted to what they're attracted to at a base and instinctive level. Lots of women will be attracted to a guy who has made something of himself because he is - shock and horror - a go-getter who thinks a lot of himself and his ability. Godawful prick to you; a catch to many's a woman. Lucky for you, you won't have to screw him; doesn't change the fact that lots of women will want to. It's illustrative of skill, resourcefulness, intelligence, command, all of those favourable traits which I'm sure have their roots in much earlier times, but still hold today.

Not because of some oppressive patriarchy, because we are hard-wired and further influenced by our environment. That guy is probably a lot more socially progressive and charming with the women than some dude who sits in the corner smouldering over his success.