Category: Dating and Relationships
I was reading an article about the practice of sugar the other day and someone logged on here with the handle of sugar daddy, so I thought I’d ask what the Zone community thinks about it?
The practice is not new. Before the internet men with money would find a woman or prostitute and keep her as his exclusive mistress. Men wanted males as well, but that wasn’t mainstream at that time. Women are earning serious money, so can afford playmates as well.
In this article a 56 year old retired banker and his wife, a 36 year old business woman, had a 20 year old college student as their girlfriend.
The man got in to it because he was in a maragewhere his wife was not interested in sex, she just married in to a good marriage. He didn’t want a prostitute, and because he’s fat, 56, and average looking; he couldn’t attract the type of women that turned him on.
The woman was in to it before she married the banker because she enjoyed sex with older established men, and young hot females. The girl got in to it because her parents were no longer able to pay her tuition at school, and to continue she needed a job that could help her. She is studding sports medicine, and will become a doctor.
The girl learned about it through a friends teasing. Her friend suggested she find some rich man to cover her expenses, so she did a search online to learn if this actually existed.
She discovered she could find a couple, so decided it might be a safe and sexually interesting way to try it out.
All three benefit from a safe interesting sexual experience. The student gets gifts and her tuition paid while she is with the couple. The couple gets to mentor and help someone. They teach her how to do things that will help her attract other partners after their relationship ends.
These relationships are companion, and sexual in nature, not for love. Some older men just want young females and males to be around them. Even though they don’t have physical sex the relationship is still sexual.
For older females it seems sexual only. They want young females first, then males for physical sex. Happily Married women look for female companions.
Is this wrong? Would you be either a sugar daddy/mamma or sugar baby? What do you think of people that enjoy this sort of lifestyle?
Hi,
Interesting topic, I was thinking about this the other day actually, just because I think about things like this. I don't know if I'd enter into a relationship of this sort. I mean, it would be nice to have more money for sure, but I don't care much about gifts for the most part. I'm not incredibly materialistic. i've always wanted to find someone to call my own. Someone who would actualy love me for me and love me enough to simply want to go through life with me. I value the quality of my relationships over money. And I'd rather have a loving, meaningful relationship, than all the money in the world. I guess I say, if it works for some people, more power to them. I think it would be much safer than simply sleeping around would be. however, I don't think I could do it.
Take Care,
Dawnielle
poster two, what makes you say sleeping around isn't safe? have you talked to anyone who doesn't desire a committed relationship, such as myself, who freely and fully enjoys sex for the beauty that it is? I'm sick and tired of this attitude that those of us who don't desire commitment are somehow less fulfilled, less happy, less anything, than those who feel differently.
I'd do it, but I don't think I'd want another mae involved. That's just not my thing. If a rich older woman wanted to pay my way through college though, sure, why not.
Perhaps you're reading too deeply into this Chelsea. I don't honestly think that's what Softy was saying at all. Frankly, I agree very well with you Softy. I imagine some people in this situation feel it's their best way out of unfortunate circumstances. Others just like money. But I'm generalizing here. There's so many reasons this situation might come to pass. I myself can't imagine being in a relationship as described above because I find far greater value in being with someone for love than for money, or even companionship. Needing the companionship of someone half my age when I'm in a committed marriage doesn't resonate with me either. But then I'm in a marriage where we each do our best to satisfy one another's various needs, companionship, physical intimacy, someone to talk to, etc. if you're not in a happy relationship I can easily imagine you'd want to find happiness elsewhare. Most humans I've come across are on a constant hunt for happiness.
BG, I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the flak I get from people such as yourself, for having such open minded, sexually liberating views. given that fact, I'm not reading too deeply into Dawnielle's post, at all.
to answer the original question, though, I couldn't ever see myself doing this, but certainly wouldn't knock those who do/would. hell, I'd be interested to hear their take on sexual things, experiences they've had, what truly makes them tick, ETC.
Hmm, Sugar mamas are accepted a lot more, at least out here, than are sugar daddies. What else are you gonna call places like Cougar Mountain, and all those other Cougar bars?
I couldn't do it. I'd rather borrow the money and pay it back myself. As for the sexual part, it's not for me. There has to be love there and commitment for me, but that's just me.
Remember, the people in this situation are a happily married couple, they just like variety, and younger females.
The woman is bi, and the man just likes hot women of any age, but variety.
Some like to pay for the type of people they want to have sex with.
This is a strickly pleasure thing, not love.
my thing is, I'm not into being with multiple people at once.
Its not always multiple people. Most times it is a one on one situation.
In your case it be a man or woman giving you things or maybe paying your rent because you are giving them pleasure.
It isn't like a contract, and mostly is unsid, but when you get with her or him you start to receive, and you know you will.
I haven't said what I think, but if a rich woman wanted to treat me to a better life then I have, and share some pleasure as well, I'd not be shy about it.
Right, that's what I'm saying. I just wouldn't want the bisexual situation because I'm not bi and I don't get pleasure from it.
Wayne, guess I misunderstood. if it's one person who I got to know/feel comfortable with, then, sure, why the hell not?
Think about people like Hugh Heffner. He’s maybe 85, but never has a girlfriend over 25 26 years old. He also has several at one time.
Cher, never dates men over 25 or so as well.
Madonna’s husband was 22, but she got tired of him, so now is single again.
This use to be the domain of rich, or men that could afford girls that were young, or sexy, but not have to go to prostitutes. Do you think all these 25 year olds are in bed with Hef because they love him? Maybe after spending some time with him they do become fond of him, but if Huff’s money, power, and such ran out, or he was just 85 and had a social security check do you think he’d have several hot women in his bed?
Sure, you can work to find maybe 1 or 2 women that would enjoy spending time with you, but several at once, or as often as you liked?
On the multiple question, many guys, including myself, would love to have more then one woman in bed at once. The only way this situation happens to regular guys is the girls decide to make it happen, or he gets lucky. It doesn’t happen because he calls up his girl friends and says, hey, Cynthia’s coming over to night, will you join us Barbra for some play?
Now if he’s got money, power, and can afford to give Cynthia and Barbra something they want, like paying the rent, taking them on nice trips, and the exciting life he can make that call.
Is this sad?
Wrong?
Maybe legal prostitution?
One of my best friends had a sugar daddy a few years ago and now they're married. I might consider it as long as there were no other men involved. I'm neither bi nor bi curious. I'm not sure about the multiple women at once thing, although it is sort of intriguing in a way.
I actually think about what if I were in a relationship like this on a semi regular basis. I never have been but I find these types of relationships interesting. I find it kind of fascinating that there are men out there who will pay for women to have sex with them in manners like this, whether it's rent they're paying for, or college tuition, or riches. Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to it, if I could actually find someone who was into that, and of course if I was comfortable with said person and the stipulations they may or may not have. However, just because I wouldn't mind something like this that doesn't make me materialistic, when I'm in an actual relationship with someone I don't expect them to by me extravagant things or always have a lot of money, the sugardaddy thing is just something I've always been interested in and if I ran into a man like that and I was comfortable with the situation I wouldn't see anything wrong with it.
Chelsea,
I wasn't saying that people who choose to sleep around, aren't safe. All I was saying is that I would think it would be safer than sleeping around. I didn't say, for sure, that it would be however. I don't know from personal experience, because I choose not to. I never said that people who choose to are any less happy not being commited than those of us who choose the committed route. I wasn't criticizing anyone's life choices, but simply stating my opinion.
Take Care,
Dawnielle
The situation is said to be safer than just sleeping around so to speak.
You interview both with the person you want and the person that is being wanted.
You know the person has money, because some websites have them prove they earn or are worth a said amount of money, so that part is already assumed, that your person, if you are chosen and if you choose them, will do things for you.
Any situation can go wrong, but if you are a college student trying to get ahead, and say an exec and some large company, you don't want issues, like STD's drama, and such. You want to be able to take your person to a corprit party, and be proud of them, so the sex part is much safer then paying a prostitute.
When your person is not with you, they are not out running around most likely.
Right, that's the way I see it, too. Not all people who sleep around are completely safe and not all are unsafe, just like anything. There are always gray areas and it depends very much on the person in question and how much they care about their body and the other persons' etc. I would think a sugar daddy/mama would deliberately pick someone who is disease-free, if they were themselves. And the sugar baby would be getting their needs met, both physically and financially, so the chances of them sleeping around in addition to the satisfaction they were geting from the sugar daddy/mama, I would imagine would be lower.
Take Care,
Dawnielle
It really depends. I think, I said think, I'd probabbley Do it if I wanted to get my way into college and if there were no females involved. Though I ask myself, what if I were to not give him as much pleasure as I used to, and so forth. So that's most likely not going to happen.
Here's the thing: the power dynamics are all about money in these situations.
I don't mean your average cougar at a cougar bar, I'm talking the sugar daddy / sugar mama situation.
It used to be they blasted men for doing this, but now with many women earning more than most of us men, we see the dynamic shifting. And as these women earn more money, they have the same sorts of body-image, sexually-based desires as men with power do. Basically my theory on that one is, the woman with money and prestige is not your average "clingy girlfriend" looking for an eligible mate with decent prospects to line her nest with.
This is in part what happens when women become the chosen and men the choosers, the reverse of what typically happens.
So Ms. CEO can get a young stud, select based on body and sex only if she wants, or maybe even domestic ability since certainly men for generations have been as good at that as any woman, and perhaps not seek after the ambitious male but something to come home to every night, or when she comes home. Again, I'm not talking the bullpen situations, though plenty of women now act in that manner also, eschewing the old-fashioned Junior Anti-Sex League model which is based on resource gathering. After all, these new ones are adept in business and are plenty capable of gathering their own resources.
Since they're in business, they can handle being turned down. CEOs have often worked in marketing and sales before holding executive office, and so are as adept at managing rejection as any stereotypical heterosexual male. Any woman in that situation didn't get the training that boys get growing up, but she did get it through business practices.
Your average woman couldn't do this because she couldn't go on the hunt the way the high-powered ones do. Going on the hunt means rejection, something we school young males to manage gracefully but I can say, having raised a daughter, there is nothing out there on how to raise up a girl to handle that stuff.
And a lot of young people especially college kids, are pretty wise to the ways of sex, plus capable of detaching sex from love. At least young men are, and so it would be a match if she did this.
The bullpen scenario is somewhat different but similar: Powerhouse rich person has several on the speed dial that she can call when she wants a hookup, and they are also free to engage with anyone else. Used to be seen as dirty old man behavior, but again, with women now in many cases out-earning men, we can see the dynamic having more to do with income than it does gender. People of lesser means will strive to have a relationship with people of greater means, even if they never intend to suck them dry or take their money.
And as we can see from the way family courts are set up, when these do result in marriages, the young men in the situation don't make off with all her earnings or take her house the way that women typically do during divorce proceedings. The system is simply not designed that way.
It is interesting to observe, to be honest, I've been watching this phenomenon for at least 15 years.
As the workplace becomes more female-dominated and more and more women gain the financial advantage, the power dynamics that come with it will be theirs. Only we males haven't evolved to be as hurt by lightweight attachments since we weren't the biologically vulnerable during childbirth for millennia.
Again, I think this one comes down to biology, evolution, and control of resources.
It doesn't bother me in the least to say it, if my wife made twice the money I do now, or even more, I wouldn't be bothered in the slightest. More likely be glad for her success.
I don't know if my father's generation would have done this so well.
Oh, another thing I have noticed with that power dynamic? Women in that situation are less likely to nag or do the honey do list and all your traditional stereotypical stuff that has been the prerogative of women for generations. Ironically, the stay-at-home men that I know don't seem to do that type of nagging to their working women. We're just evolved differently. So it certainly creates an interesting dynamic.
I don't think you'll ever see men complain about women the way that women complain about rich men though. We've simply been bred and brought up to tolerate a lot of things that women don't really tolerate. Look at us fools and how much we will tolerate from a woman be it a wife, sister, or whoever, and how women say "I would never put up with that!" That's because we men are raised to take it. Women are raised to object to it, which ultimately serves in them having the best prospects at procuring the most resources for herself and any offspring.
Again, for the simple among us, we're speaking in very general and certainly very heteronormative terms. Also by very general, for those who don't know what that is, we're also speaking in multi-generational terms.
The stay-at-home dads I have known over the past couple decades have really borne this stuff out. And since they're male, and also have no biological vulnerability while caring for the offspring, they tend to do it all very differently. As did most of us attentive dads who also work outside the home.
I know this has strayed some from the sugar daddy / sugar mama situation, but all of this plays a part in the social dynamic that is acceptance.
I would imagine, though, that an increase of sugar mamas would create unwanted competition for the young standards-bearing choosers looking to select a mate with prospects to feather her nest. That demographic, unlike the sugar mamas, is not very well set up for competition: they are likely to complain about the change rather than compete. The power chicks making six figures know about competition, though, the same way guys have been bred to know it for millennia.
When choosers now have to become competitors, and compete with some formidable competition, I think the former choosers will probably take it the most hard, and have the least skill set to manage the situation. That is, until they get into business and learn what boys are taught from babyhood: how to take it, how to compete. Competing is a whole different set of skills than selecting against a long list of have-tos.