so i was just wondering on what people thought of this kind of relationship where one partner is reliant on the other for some financial contribution or gifts in return for company and sex.
personally im mixed, my main knee jerk reation is that its just another form of prostitution and that its something that is parceled in with giving away your independence and dignity.
on the other hand i think its admirable that there is an amount of honest in theese relationships, both parties know what they are getting in for and what the basic conditions of the arrangement are.
sugar mummies are a lot rarer, but there is a small percentage.
I can kind of understand why the sugarbabies ( the parner that relies on the older ones) do it, if theye really deperate for the money and they'd enjoy the sex and companionships
I'd be up for it! As long as I was attracted to the older woman, being paid to pleasure her sounds perfect! I imagine I'd only do it for a short term period, but I'd make it worth her while...
I don't really see an issue if both are getting what they want out of it and not expecting more.
You could say a houswife is technically reliant on her spouse for financial security and in exchange cleans house, cooks and shags, but everyone knows in reality it's a lot more complicated, and the reasons people enter into such unions are all over the shop.
You could say a houswife is technically reliant on her spouse for financial security and in exchange cleans house, cooks and shags,
another analogy that most people use in this situation is going on a date and being expected to shag in exchange for the other partner footing the bill in the resturant.
Good question. It's obviously a complicated affair, one person's sugar daddy may simply be generous or have no intent of being a sugar daddy.
My knee jerk is that they appear to me to be exploitative and I don't doubt some are, going both ways. I don't see it beyond the realms of possibility that an infatuated and lonely person is used in much the same way as someone may befriend an old person to get a chunk of a will. The receiver may also be 'sucked in' and feel valued but be very mistaken about the manner of that value. In this I include certain relationships that involve 'tribute', they don't sit easy with me for the reason above. I can't help but feel it preys on a vulnerable element within someone, I hate to say that because I know I know very little of the issue in that way and many tribute givers likely feel empowered but given my own experience there appears to be something 'unnatural' in 'paying' for certain experiences that involve such complicated psychology and that should be free in conventional relationships. I'm aware not all will agree of like this view and I don't myself, it's not very sex positive but something just doesn't sit right for me. I really hop that doesn't offend and I would love to hear the other side and clarification.
I know not all relationships of this nature will be exploitative, it may just be another dimension to the sex trade that suits both people (I think it is part of the sex trade because if the answer to the question 'Would you if you weren't rewarded?' is no then it's a transaction, albeit a non-explicit one). If it does suit both then it's an elegant solution to a problem. I don't think it is inherently unhealthy, if both parties are strong and aware of their boundaries but I still think the potential for abuse makes it an uncomfortable idea to me.
So, if both parties can be empowered by it (like any sexual practice, oral sex, swinging, voyeurism etc) then it's a great thing, I just think it requires certain types of people or it can go rather tits up.
There are of course wide social implications to contend with, although two parties may feel it suits them perfectly it takes alot of strength to breach certain social barriers (such as age or it being seen as exploitative). That is another dimension to address.
Oooo sorry. I want to make clear that I have a wider concept of sexuality in mind when primarily addressing this topic. It is mainly the last three paragraphs that address the actual question you ask SL.
I think WandA's described very well why some people who label themselves as sexually open minded still find difficulties feeling "ok" with the idea of paid sex - be it in gift or monetary forms.
I do agree that it can be a complicated matter and as will all practises - as long as it's safe, consensual and noone is getting hurt then who are we to judge. We apply similar arguments to swinging - some people are very uncomfortable with the idea, but fully accept that a couple engaging in the activity aren't necessarily doing anything "wrong" as long as it's safe, consensual and noone is getting hurt.
I guess it's just a circumstance where people are more *likely* to get hurt so it's easy to feel uneasy about the idea. The risk is inherantly slightly higher.
I think the idea Pixie brought up that many "normal" relationships can be seen as transactions and I'm sure it can be argued that when you say "I think it is part of the sex trade because if the answer to the question 'Would you if you weren't rewarded?' is no then it's a transaction, albeit a non-explicit one", WandA, that any sexual relationship may be deemed as a sex trade due to the idea that we all (generally) gain some kind of reward for nurturing and looking after our relationships. But I think you merely missed an extra disclaimer on that point and I'm nitpicking :P
My opinion is I can see how it may work very well if both parties are fully aware of their "role" but it's not something I expect many sugarparents/babies do for the very long term as Jake elluded to.
I don't see anything inherantly wrong with the idea but I can see how it's very easily open to abuse.
I think the idea Pixie brought up that many "normal" relationships can be seen as transactions and I'm sure it can be argued that when you say "I think it is part of the sex trade because if the answer to the question 'Would you if you weren't rewarded?' is no then it's a transaction, albeit a non-explicit one", WandA, that any sexual relationship may be deemed as a sex trade due to the idea that we all (generally) gain some kind of reward for nurturing and looking after our relationships. But I think you merely missed an extra disclaimer on that point and I'm nitpicking :P
Adx
We do gain some reward, we gain some reward for everything we do but often it is not financial. I feel the point lies with intent. If the action occurs because your intent lies primarily with the reward (of a commodity) then it is a transaction, if the reward is a pleasing by product or a feeling of happiness etc then it is not an explicit transaction in my opinion.
i can see both ideas on the issue of the reward, but to be honest i feel a bit like jake in the fact that if i was attracted to the person and it was good sex, then why not go for it?
i can see both ideas on the issue of the reward, but to be honest i feel a bit like jake in the fact that if i was attracted to the person and it was good sex, then why not go for it?
If you're strong enough to deal with the social/mental baggage then why not. People have fuck buddies so it can be seen as little more than that. It just would not personally hold any interest for me precisely because there is a payment involved (in my opinion), it seems intended to sway someone in a certain direction they otherwise would not. I don't like the potential for power the 'gifts' have, it seems unnecessary for me.
I really do think it works for some people, I just don't think the majority of people are rational beings who can leave the baggage and some might find such a cold distinction between reward and sex quite an uncomfortable experience. It's not for me, but neither is sticking things up my bum(!) and plenty of people love that.External Media
But if its not something you 'need' and being treated specially and you enjoy the relationship you have, meaning you feel no pressure to have sex with a person for the things given in return for it, then I see no problem at all.
Hmmm. See, intent still forms a big part of this for me. Is it prostitution if the 'daddy' thinks he is paying for sex but the giver is unaware? There isn't anything inherently wrong with prostitution (I actually think it can have big positives) but it seems in that case people reading from different pages might present a problem. Once again, if both parties are aware then it could be great.
I do think it essentially is prostitution, but I don't really see that as a problem since I don't agree with most of the social connotations that come with it. It's a job for some people.
Hmm, something I'm interested in, but will have to come back later. In essence, however, I think it all depends on if you would do it without the money. I've had a few situations where, in a relationship, either I or the other person fell on hard times, and the other had to take over financially. As long as the person being reliant on the other was not doing anything outside of what they would have done had the circumstances been different, I don't see any harm (although there is always the hurt pride of being the 'taker', no matter how it's played).
I think if it had been a situation where I was not interested in the person, and it was only the money that was keeping me there, then that'd feel...icky. I did once, on a random night out, hook up with a guy mainly because I couldn't afford cab fare home and didn't want to walk. Not quite prostitution, and I was already in the "why not?" camp without the financial factor, but it did leave me feeling a little yuk about it. So I think if it's something that could be more serious than a ONS, then even having the finances as a deciding factor to any degree will probably taint the resulting relationship for you. In other words, if you think it has the chance of going somewhere, then that chance has to be good enough that you would have done it without the finances, or else leave it until you're in a situation where that isn't a factor. And if not, then it's down to how squiffy you think you'll feel (and how aware the other person is, because it will obviously feel worse if you're conning some guy who thinks he's found someone who cares).
I don't think we can adopt a "holier than thou" atttitude considered we're on a website that sells ball gags and under the mattress restraints.
I don't think anyone is expressing that attitude.External Media
It sits uneasily for a few people, including myself, but that doesn't mean I'd judge a particular relationship without knowing the specifics or I'd want to stop anyone.
Again, the kneejerk reaction is to revile a relationship that is overtly exploitative. However in some cases it seems that both partners know that they are using each other for personal gain whether emotional, physical or material and thus although it seems like a refined form of prostitution to me those involved are mutually satisfied, which in a conventional relationship is part of one's aim. In sugar mummy/ daddy scenarios perhaps the aims and means to successfully meeting this are merely more defined. There is definitely a greater opportunity for exploitation and percentage that delibirately target vulnerable or specific types of people in a predatory manner, we've all met them. My last flatmate (male) fell victim to one of them, not the age gap but same dynamic. He was too tender hearted to stand up to the manipulation.
In cases where both partners are clear on the purpose of the relationship I think there is a definite transaction as one is exchanging one thing or 'gift' for another, payment is not universally given in monetary units. I have a general dislike of consciously using a person without concern for the individual as a person, with or without their knowledge, though the latter is far, far more serious.
