Jump to content
Vimerietta

You call it Sugar Baby, I call it friends with benefits

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 511 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Syo Emerald said:

I think its true once you hit a really high level of wealth. When you have multiple luxurious houses, have covered every need you and your loved ones could have and can basically do whatever you want all day long. Then it doesn't matter if you earn another milion, in terms of happyness. On the other hand the first milion you get makes you extremely happy.

I've heard this concept before in philosophy class in school, although the example there was food.

maslows hierarchy of needs. once you reach the top there is nothing more to worry about or need. you do just because you can do, not because you need to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sylvannas Zulaman said:

OP aims to find a guy who pays her bills while she just casually and eventually gives him some sexy time (based on the 'no strings attached'). 

I'm kind of impressed that she managed to spin this into something that's usually expected to be a positive for a man ("no strings"). Although given the ratio of sugar babies to sugar daddies (can someone please come up with a better term? I loathe even having to read these ones, I can actually hear my skin crawling), commitment looks like it'll pretty much always be a relative term.

I get this vibe from more or less all the wannabe sugar babies who are always posting on here. I'm not the target audience so I guess it doesn't matter how it appears to me, but it really doesn't seem appealing somehow. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:

can someone please come up with a better term?

escort, prostitute, hooker, tramp, streetwalker, working girl, lady of the evening....

just a few synonyms from the web...
based on the info most provide in the profile, ... they only want clients, they already work as escort, so they are only available when not working, and that's not SD relationship.

Edited by Ethan Paslong
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

maslows hierarchy of needs. once you reach the top there is nothing more to worry about or need. you do just because you can do, not because you need to do.

I know about Maslow and he definitly fits that situation very well. His basic idea is a good one (thats why his hierarchy is still taught), but it isn't a perfect model, as its not as rigid as the hierarchy may indiacte. In real life, you'll find situations that don't match the hierarchy. Think of the conditions many poor people live: Small, selfmade houses with little comfort and just enough shelter, a limited source of food (quantity and varity). You would expect that any additional income would go straight into improving the lower steps of Maslows hierarchy: Better food, shelter and safety. But they buy a TV instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Syo Emerald said:

 Small, selfmade houses with little comfort and just enough shelter, a limited source of food (quantity and varity). You would expect that any additional income would go straight into improving the lower steps of Maslows hierarchy: Better food, shelter and safety. But they buy a TV instead.

I wouldn't necessarily expect that, no. If you can't afford a gym membership, art classes or the train fare into town, a TV is a good investment for recreation. It's a one-off expense, usually with options to pay by instalments, and you're likely to use it every day to entertain yourself. It's also a question of time; if you're a struggling single parent who can't go out much and is home more or less every evening, there it is and you can also use it for gaming. Doesn't take up much space either; sometimes it's not that you can't afford a cheap home cross trainer, but you've got literally nowhere to put it.

It's also far more immediately available and attainable than "better shelter". Even if your increase in income could theoretically be saved until you have enough for the moving costs, deposit and increased rent/mortgage payments, it's likely that it's going to take some time and some scrimping to gather the necessary pot together. A TV, on the other hand, is a lot more immediately attainable. 

Of course there are always Worthier Ways to spend a little extra income, and there is always the library (if your local one hasn't been screwed over by austerity) but nobody should be surprised that someone who is poor in time, cash, space or any combination of the three buys a nice TV. 

"Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn't. Here the tendency of which I spoke at the end of the last chapter comes into play. When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don't want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit 'tasty'. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you.” - George Orwell.

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2019 at 8:19 AM, Syo Emerald said:

Friends with benefits wouldn't involve money or required gifts.

This is because the benefits are mutually gratifying, even though in different ways, men and  women react to real life sex in different ways but generally both sides get enjoyment out of the process.  Virtual sex however is often a lot of fun for guys, who are more visually oriented,  but not so much for girls. The things we like about sex don't translate nearly so well with virtual sex  between two avatars. Virtual sex isn't really a part of the fantasy I log on to SL for, but it is often the only reason some guy logs on. My SL fantasy involves shopping for new clothes. So why is it an issue,  if a guy gives me the benefit of money to do my fantasy, if I am willing to give him the benefit of time spent with my avatar on some adult poseball? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

... guys, who are more visually oriented, ...

They are? Explain their avatars then!

Trophy Wives, Sugar Babes, name your euphemism - it all boils down to selling sexytimes for access to wealth -  dictionaries have a word for that practice.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fionalein said:

They are? Explain their avatars then!

Touché! 

Edited by Amina Sopwith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Talligurl said:

This is because the benefits are mutually gratifying, even though in different ways, men and  women react to real life sex in different ways but generally both sides get enjoyment out of the process.  Virtual sex however is often a lot of fun for guys, who are more visually oriented,  but not so much for girls. The things we like about sex don't translate nearly so well with virtual sex  between two avatars. Virtual sex isn't really a part of the fantasy I log on to SL for, but it is often the only reason some guy logs on. My SL fantasy involves shopping for new clothes. So why is it an issue,  if a guy gives me the benefit of money to do my fantasy, if I am willing to give him the benefit of time spent with my avatar on some adult poseball? 

Not all women think the same, nor do they enjoy all the same things, and the same applies to men. There is no general hard and fast rule when it comes to what people enjoy about sex, virtual, or otherwise, despite what some people may like to think. Women can be just as visually oriented as men-in fact, to say women aren't, is a bit ridiculous, especially when virtual sex is part of the discussion where visuals, more often than not, play a pretty darn big role. Women spend as much time being sexually attracted to men as men do to women- the act of sex doesn't actually change this, whatsoever.  Supposed "studies" surrounding the entire topic I often find are as one sided as your opinion. They may not be necessarily "wrong"(most can't really be proven right, or wrong, but that's a whole different topic, for a different day), but they most certainly carry a bit of bias when the "polled audience", as it were, is as specific as your particular audience would be. I am not bashing you, in any way, shape, or form, but you have stated yourself that men seek you out, specifically for the services you provide. That offers a bit of a bias and less of an even ground when it comes to sex and what females versus males like and desire, really. When your audience is rather specific, how you see them is just as likely to be quite specific too, nothing wrong with that, it is what it is.  Again, that's not judgment of the kind of relationships you seek and have with others, or anyone else for that matter, I prefer to take a live and let live approach on that, as much as I possibly can, personally. But I don't think using your own personal biases, likes, dislikes, is a great way to measure what everyone else does, or doesn't. I absolutely LOATHE shopping, and I can't stand the idea that all, or even most, women must love, or even like it...pffft, no thanks. I don't think there is anything wrong *for others if they do love or even like it, but, for me, it's more of an annoyance and would never play part in any fantasy, ever. There was a time for hubby and I that sl played a very large role in our life together, in as many aspects of it as possible, when we couldn't be together in person. It was very much a part of our individual and mutual fantasies, and I don't see anything wrong with that either. In fact, the visuals that a virtual environment can provide, for both men and women, can be particularly beneficial in this regard.

While some people may very well take issue with the idea of FWB, escorts, sugar daddy/mommy, or any other kind of relationships that often rely heavily on sexual favors in either one or both directions...not everyone does. It may not necessarily be their cup of tea, but not everyone is as judgmental as you(general) assume, about it all. Even if some are...so what. If you don't take issue with your own relationships with other people, mutually beneficial, sexually reliant, gift oriented, whatever else is involved...then it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks, it's really none of their business. Unless, of course, if one brings it to the public for discussion, in which case, people kind of open themselves, and their relationship desires up for discussion. If one doesn't want that, one shouldn't put it out there for discussion, really. They're bound to find people who "take issue", and people who do not. Those not comfy with the ones who take issue, probably shouldn't put it out there for discussion, lol. That's sort of an unwritten, though it's often written, rule of the internet, really. If you don't want people taking issue with, or discussing it...don't put it out on display to be discussed. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fionalein said:

They are? Explain their avatars then!

of course they are...most are... eh.. most straights are...

they are so busy perving to the curves of the girls they have no time to look at themself.

"you need new jeans"... why, i already have a pair.!
"you need a new skin" ... why.... this 12 yr old one is tight enough! ( looks more like a orange, but nobody sees that in the darkroom)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ethan Paslong said:

of course they are...most are... eh.. most straights are...

they are so busy perving to the curves of the girls they have no time to look at themself.)

Well yes, we did pick that up. But it's more this persistent idea that men are so "visual" and women are so not, which is why women are pressured to look so good all the time while a certain type of man thinks he's entitled to a complete beauty while looking like the unholy love child of Ursula and Jabba the Hutt. Of course, this double standard is bad for men too (double standards usually are, one way or another) because it means that when they do want to express themselves through their appearance, they haven't got anywhere near as much choice and, indeed, risk being ridiculed for it.

 

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 12:50 PM, Fionalein said:
On 2/23/2019 at 12:39 PM, Talligurl said:

... guys, who are more visually oriented, ...

They are? Explain their avatars then!

oh that's easy!  They don't look at their avatar.  They are their avatar and they look at everyone else.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2019 at 9:19 AM, Amina Sopwith said:

[...] the unholy love child of Ursula and Jabba the Hutt[...]

 

Not to diminish your argument, but that's a rather hilarious and poetic description.

I think, in the end, OP is pretty upfront of what she wants.. Of course, it's a taboo topic too.

In the end, these arrangements benefit both parts - since the SDs are looking for arm candy as well as a good time, while the SBs get the attention as well as the spoiling benefits. My only problem is those that hide their agendas under the guise of friendship. As someone new, I've stumbled across a lot of individuals that don't label themselves as SB-wannabes or even escorts, until after they think they have you hook. 😑

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AdamVelaryon said:

I think, in the end, OP is pretty upfront of what she wants.. Of course, it's a taboo topic too.

In the end, these arrangements benefit both parts - since the SDs are looking for arm candy as well as a good time, while the SBs get the attention as well as the spoiling benefits. My only problem is those that hide their agendas under the guise of friendship. As someone new, I've stumbled across a lot of individuals that don't label themselves as SB-wannabes or even escorts, until after they think they have you hook. 😑

 

There is absolutely nothing taboo about it. If there were, we wouldn't get people requesting it on here every other day or see such relationships every single day in the public eye. Melania Fart isn't with her husband for his compassion, intelligence, political acumen or good hair. Far from taboo, it's actually wearing incredibly thin. 

And yes, we know the benefits to both parties. Those are obvious too. However, I don't have much sympathy for those either side of the coin who get screwed over a bit. You're not entitled to anyone's money or body just because you had sex or bought them something. Besides, if it's transactional, they aren't gifts, they're payments. And if it's transactional, is it actually SD/SB or is it the other thing that so many PPs call it?

I actually had a SD-esque relationship once, in character in an RP sim. We never labelled it that way (I'd have run a mile if he had) and I didn't even realise there were elements of it until I had a conversation about it recently on one of these threads. In my experience at least, his pleasure came from being protective and generous, as well as seeing his girls kitted out beautifully as a display of his wealth and benevolence. (It was IC, but wish fulfilment RP for him. He'd bought me from slavers because he didn't like seeing the way they were treating me - they had a vendetta.) The sex was a bit secondary, though obviously still important. I was playing a slave (well after I got caught, didn't start off that way) and we had an OOC friendship in which he was still very caring and supportive, but I sincerely never felt as though I was exchanging sex or companionship for money or gifts, even in RP. 

I don't know, I don't claim to be any expert in these relationships. I just don't think the approach most of the wannabe SBs are using on here is very appealing. I know they're being "upfront" but, I don't know, there's not much seductiveness in it, is there? I think the Americans call it "having game"...






 

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2019 at 10:35 AM, Amina Sopwith said:

On a side note, is there a reason for the current influx of sugar babies? I know they've always been around in SL but I'm sure there weren't this many back in the day. Is it because mesh has increased the costs of beautifying and styling yourself?

I think it's a mix of a few things, some which have been mentioned, your thought included. Another reason might be the huuuuuuge babygirl trend. Some parts of which have morphed into sugar babies. Only to be expected in a way. Some, after learning it was possible to be involved in a relationship where one can be cosseted and looked after, have opted for monetization. There's a definite kink involved on both sides, in my opinion, even when the relationship is mainly about convenience/expedience; there's a reason for going SB/SD route to meet the needs. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2019 at 7:13 AM, Musetta Fieschi said:

I think it's a mix of a few things, some which have been mentioned, your thought included. Another reason might be the huuuuuuge babygirl trend. Some parts of which have morphed into sugar babies. Only to be expected in a way. Some, after learning it was possible to be involved in a relationship where one can be cosseted and looked after, have opted for monetization. There's a definite kink involved on both sides, in my opinion, even when the relationship is mainly about convenience/expedience; there's a reason for going SB/SD route to meet the needs. 

Interesting. I don't claim to be an expert, I have very little personal experience of this. It does seem to me, though, that if the entire thing really does last only as long as the SD has money and the SB is sexually pleasing, then that really is the other thing, and this is just a way to, well, sugar coat it. If you wouldn't stay with your SD after he lost his fortune, or you'd ditch your SB after she suffered some misfortune that meant she can't service you for a while in whatever terms, then it's not really a personal relationship, it's a business arrangement that's no longer being met.

Funnily enough, I do believe in "cheap with money, cheap with love" and that if you care for someone, you will be happy to spend money on them. It's more about sharing what you've got, though, than necessarily being loaded and showering someone with expensive gifts. I may not have a lot to give, but what I've got, I'll give to you, as the Beatles put it.

I think it's a pretty common female fantasy to want to be taken care of and have all your problems taken away. I can understand why the security of tons of money would help to generate that feeling. (And I guess the thrill of being so desirable that someone will pay a lot for you.) I'm not getting that sense from most of these wannabe SBs though. With one or two exceptions, they mostly seem to be "upfront" as a PP put it. Which I guess is fair enough, but there's not much humanity in it. Trying to put myself in my old pseudo-SD's shoes, I don't think he'd have been at all attracted to a simple, "I want your money and I'm worth a lot of it". No sense of vulnerability, no sense of "rescue", indeed no sense of any actual human relationship or seductiveness at all. Just transaction. In our case, it wasn't actually about buying acrobatic sex; his pleasure was a lot more psychological. 

There used to be a repeat advert in the classified section of Private Eye, in the part where people begged for money to fund university or other worthy causes. Always made me laugh. It said: "Not needy, just greedy. Gimme!"

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Interesting. I don't claim to be an expert, I have very little personal experience of this. It does seem to me, though, that if the entire thing really does last only as long as the SD has money and the SB is sexually pleasing, then that really is the other thing, and this is just a way to, well, sugar coat it. If you wouldn't stay with your SD after he lost his fortune, or you'd ditch your SB after she suffered some misfortune that meant she can't service you for a while in whatever terms, then it's not really a personal relationship, it's a business arrangement that's no longer being met.

Agreed, particularly in RL. Though in SL...I'm not really sure if it's that straightforward. I'm sure there are some people who are attempting to pay bills sl/rl with this sort of relationship. But i wonder if more, if the transactional nature of it is the kink, as you explored in your comment.

And this:

3 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:

There used to be a repeat advert in the classified section of Private Eye, in the part where people begged for money to fund university or other worthy causes. Always made me laugh. It said: "Not needy, just greedy. Gimme!"

It's just hilarious!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Musetta Fieschi said:

Agreed, particularly in RL. Though in SL...I'm not really sure if it's that straightforward. I'm sure there are some people who are attempting to pay bills sl/rl with this sort of relationship. But i wonder if more, if the transactional nature of it is the kink, as you explored in your comment.

I guess my feeling, based on my limited experience and discussions about it, is that if it's about the transaction then it's a different kink and not so much about what I understand a true SD/SB relationship to be....which is to say, a caring relationship that would endure even if the SD lost his money or the SB became less sexy. The money is more about expressing a protective, indulgent dynamic that's still there without it, if you see what I mean. Like how it's entirely possible to Dom someone without tying them up, even if you both like it.

It must be very hard to start a relationship like this. When the SBs  appear on here demanding "wealthy people" and making the money the very first condition, then I don't see how anything that results could be anything other than truly transactional, at least in the beginning. Over time, I guess feelings could develop so that the relationship does become more personal and not based solely on buying sexual attention, unable to survive otherwise. 

12 hours ago, Musetta Fieschi said:

It's just hilarious!

After a few months, I might have sent them a fiver myself. Seemed a small price for something that made me giggle every time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. This is a virtual game. I am doing what I have to do. Yeah I don't have no sob story about being a single mom having to do it. Otherwise I made odds meet. No problem for your opinion, that was a little intense. I just got people to support. I feel the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. This is a virtual game. I am doing what I have to do. Yeah I don't have no sob story about being a single mom having to do it. Otherwise I made odds meet. No problem for your opinion, that was a little intense. I just got people to support. I feel the same way.

 

thanks again for your blunt and honest comments. I need to snap out of it sometimes. Seriously thank all of you for commenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vimerietta said:

Lol. This is a virtual game. I am doing what I have to do. Yeah I don't have no sob story about being a single mom having to do it. Otherwise I made odds meet. No problem for your opinion, that was a little intense. I just got people to support. I feel the same way.

I'd give the "not needy, just greedy" approach a try. I sent that person a fiver for making me laugh.

I've always assumed that SL escorts are just acting out a fantasy rather than really trying to make serious money. You don't "have" to do anything here.

If your purpose really is just to have money to spend in-game and not a kink or relationship, you'd do much better to do some of those online surveys for a few quid/bucks/whatever, or even just an hour or two of minimum wage RL work, and buy Lindens with your earnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Takes money to get money. Luckily found some income b within 2 weeks of playing, secretary of an Mc. I don't like this *****. I always give I don't need help anymore. Doesn't mean you can't strike a convoy with me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vimerietta said:

Takes money to get money. Luckily found some income b within 2 weeks of playing, secretary of an Mc. I don't like this *****. I always give I don't need help anymore. Doesn't mean you can't strike a convoy with me.

 

Aren't you just a ray of sunshine?

What would your employer think when he reads your rudeness on a public forum while you're representing him as a secretary? Better hope he doesn't read it or it's back to looking for a sugar daddy for you!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Syn Anatine said:

Aren't you just a ray of sunshine?

What would your employer think when he reads your rudeness on a public forum while you're representing him as a secretary? Better hope he doesn't read it or it's back to looking for a sugar daddy for you!

Nope. I'm no sugar baby. I never sold myself ever, real life ***** was happening. You have a better idea to fix a 90 thousand dollar plumbing fix after just moving in. No worries, I'm not here to steal your men anyways. And in real life I'm my own employer. So, yeah I'd do anything to be able to use my restroom again and shower, maybe even to brush my teeth, wash my face from toxic mold spreading. Don't judge someone, cuz you might just end up in there same shoes getting judged by the person you were.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 511 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...