Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Holy zombie thread, Batman. Since we're here, though...
I've never been a sugar daddy, but it seems to me that it would have all the downside of using a prostitute AND of being in a relationship, with none of the upside of either.
I don't use prostitutes, either, but I at least see the appeal of that on a certain level. As Chris Rock famously said, you don't pay them for sex, you pay them to go away. With a sugar baby, as I understand it, she doesn't go away.
So basically it's either like 1) Having a shallow fake girlfriend whose only appeal to you is sexual, and paying for the privilege, or 2) Having a prostitute who never goes away and keeps charging you more and more money.
After much vacillation, I voted "Yes", not because I desire such a relationship or regard it as morally indistinguishable from a more equal one, but because something along those lines is inevitable. If two people are intimately close, but their financial situation differs greatly, how is it possible for the wealthier NOT to support the poorer? I don't mean a gauche trade of sex for dollars, but the basic consequence of inequality.
Let's take the Hugh Hefner example. Hugh is most likely a billionaire. How many billionaire single women are out there? Suppose that Hugh wants to get married to a woman close to his own age, in similar financial circumstances. How exactly is he to go about doing that? Even if he finds some superstar female lawyer earning $400K/year, or maybe Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina, there's still a huge financial imbalance. And I don't think that Meg or Carly are single. Let's quit pretending that this is just some arrogant rich guy throwing his cash around to score appealing arm-candy.
Now let's downscope this to more modest circumstances. Suppose that you're a farmer in India. You're the biggest landowner in your village, with the most acreage and the most farm animals. You might even have electricity in your house, whereas no one else does. Your net worth is only $100K, but by rural Indian standards you're fabulously wealthy. So who are you going to marry? Who in your age bracket is still single? How would you NOT end up in a distorted relationship?
Where does love fit into your scenario? That is what the OP asked about.
After much vacillation, I voted "Yes", not because I desire such a relationship or regard it as morally indistinguishable from a more equal one, but because something along those lines is inevitable. If two people are intimately close, but their financial situation differs greatly, how is it possible for the wealthier NOT to support the poorer? I don't mean a gauche trade of sex for dollars, but the basic consequence of inequality.
Let's take the Hugh Hefner example. Hugh is most likely a billionaire. How many billionaire single women are out there? Suppose that Hugh wants to get married to a woman close to his own age, in similar financial circumstances. How exactly is he to go about doing that? Even if he finds some superstar female lawyer earning $400K/year, or maybe Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina, there's still a huge financial imbalance. And I don't think that Meg or Carly are single. Let's quit pretending that this is just some arrogant rich guy throwing his cash around to score appealing arm-candy.
Now let's downscope this to more modest circumstances. Suppose that you're a farmer in India. You're the biggest landowner in your village, with the most acreage and the most farm animals. You might even have electricity in your house, whereas no one else does. Your net worth is only $100K, but by rural Indian standards you're fabulously wealthy. So who are you going to marry? Who in your age bracket is still single? How would you NOT end up in a distorted relationship?
This doesn't make sense. Sugar daddy =/= man who has a larger income.
So you're saying that if I date a man who makes a lot more than me, he's my sugar daddy? Even if I love him and pay my own bills?
I haven't read all 32 pages of this thread. Still, let's set aside the terms sugarbaby and sugar daddy for the time being. What you really have is one person providing economic benefits to another person. Doesn't that happen all the time in relationships? For example, husband has a good job and the wife has an American Express card and a new Lexus, but doesn't work. Or, rich boyfriend takes poor girlfriend to Cancun for a few weeks.
This is a complex issue with far more than one answer, made complex by a few reasons:
Deciding to take a chance on a relationship with someone who has money is just as shallow as deciding to take a chance on a relationship with someone because they have nice abs and a good set of hair. Neither are particularly deep, but we make decisions on who we will and won't date all the time on superficialities.
This type of relationship attracts power imbalances. If both sides were looking for the same thing, it would be all right. Too often, the broad 'types' are mismatched. This results in either or both being unhappy with the situation. The various types engaged in this are:
1) The '50 shades of gray' type. This is the person who thinks it will be all about trips to the Riviera and (insert sex fetish of choice here). It's a relationship where both are essentially self-interested, but intrigued by the differences in the other.
2) The 'White Knight' type. This can either be the man who wants to rescue the girl from a mediocre life or the average girl wishing to live a life less ordinary and seeing their Disney-esque Prince Charming coming to take them away.
3) The selfish one - This person wants as much as possible while giving as little in return. Male... Female. They're both exactly the same.
As you can see: Neither of those types are problems when they're paired with other types of similar interests, but when the 3 types become intertwined, it causes issue. The White Knight male bores the 50 shades girl while the Selfish male essentially causes nothing but tears for the White Knight girl.
In the end, it's your life: Do what you want with it. There are consequences as always, but being honest with your partner and yourself will end up making you both happy.
After much vacillation, I voted "Yes", not because I desire such a relationship or regard it as morally indistinguishable from a more equal one, but because something along those lines is inevitable. If two people are intimately close, but their financial situation differs greatly, how is it possible for the wealthier NOT to support the poorer? I don't mean a gauche trade of sex for dollars, but the basic consequence of inequality.
Let's take the Hugh Hefner example. Hugh is most likely a billionaire. How many billionaire single women are out there? Suppose that Hugh wants to get married to a woman close to his own age, in similar financial circumstances. How exactly is he to go about doing that? Even if he finds some superstar female lawyer earning $400K/year, or maybe Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina, there's still a huge financial imbalance. And I don't think that Meg or Carly are single. Let's quit pretending that this is just some arrogant rich guy throwing his cash around to score appealing arm-candy.
Now let's downscope this to more modest circumstances. Suppose that you're a farmer in India. You're the biggest landowner in your village, with the most acreage and the most farm animals. You might even have electricity in your house, whereas no one else does. Your net worth is only $100K, but by rural Indian standards you're fabulously wealthy. So who are you going to marry? Who in your age bracket is still single? How would you NOT end up in a distorted relationship?
Hugh Hefner is very far from being a billionaire. In his divorce from Kim Conrad documents came out showing he only had cash on hand in his bank accounts of around $1mil and few assets outside of the magazine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
