[jns]

As I as reading through the posts I began to wonder: do people act better together in a sugar relationship than they would otherwise especially if the total transaction amount is high? Is the "I'm not in the mood" statement used less? Does one partner or the other dominate the relationship more or less? Does belittlement take place? I suspect that prostitutes take a lot of crap from some customers. Marriages can have serious problems in them. How does this work in sugar dating?

[atskitty2]

Yeah, I think there probably is a lot of "control" that's assumed in this arrangement. I'm sure these are not without the same problems that are generated whenever people spend any amount of time together. Maybe it's mitigated, a little, by the written or spoken contract. But I think any time someone is perceived, or feels themselves to be at a lesser position, there's potential for conflict, especially if that person doesn't have the confidence and strength to demand the deserved respect and what they've earned. I think it's likely the sugar baby that is on that side of the imbalance most of the time.

[JonnyR]

All good points!

- RE: the "free meals" thing: I was saying that a lot of women are doing this with multiple dates/partners at the same time, with it not really leading to anything -- like you said, they often say they don't even like the person, but they can get a free meal, so why not.

This is where it gets gray for me -- if that's the case (you inherently know right away you aren't going to be into this person), and yet you still proceed with a "date" because of the financial or other benefit, isn't that the SAME thing? You're just not calling it a sugar-dating situation, but it inherently is one in effect, right?

You're "using" someone to get your needs met (financially) -- the only difference is it isn't up front and honest.

At least the sugar-folks are all up front (hopefully) so the woman doesn't feel bad for getting a free lunch, and the guy doesn't feel bad providing one either!

It's almost more freeing this way -- plays the aforementioned criteria where the woman has to be into the guy, so there's that, then at least, no?

- Re: the contract and power dynamics -- absolutely!

Look at it this way -- if I agree to pay your rent, or give you a monthly stipend in exchange for your "time" whenever I want or need it, and your rent is coming due each month, and I decide to stall, play games or hold that over you, then there's alraeady and unequal power dynamic where I'm holding that over you every chance I get.

Step out of line, and I won't pay this month's rent.

Fail to comply with my wishes? No food on your table.

Give me crap about something, or p* me off? No stipend for you!

This can get really ugly, really quickly!

- Finally, do "nice" guys become sugar daddies, do you think? Or does it seem to skew to A-holes who relish the power dynamics and lack of empathy/intimacy?

Are guys who aren't good with women, are maybe shy or generally pushovers, or "nicer" men, but who have money and are okay with paying for their time, more likely to gravitate towards an NSA situation?

[Alison H.]

I don't know. I'd think that even "nice" guys would get in on that kind of arrangement if they're getting their needs met that way. I absolutely think that SOME a-hole guys who get off on the power dynamic are into the sugar daddy thing, for obvious reasons, but I also think that perfectly nice guys who just want companionship but also to take care of someone else would, too.

[atskitty2]

All good points!

- RE: the "free meals" thing: I was saying that a lot of women are doing this with multiple dates/partners at the same time, with it not really leading to anything -- like you said, they often say they don't even like the person, but they can get a free meal, so why not.

This is where it gets gray for me -- if that's the case (you inherently know right away you aren't going to be into this person), and yet you still proceed with a "date" because of the financial or other benefit, isn't that the SAME thing? You're just not calling it a sugar-dating situation, but it inherently is one in effect, right?

You're "using" someone to get your needs met (financially) -- the only difference is it isn't up front and honest.

- Re: the contract and power dynamics -- absolutely!

Look at it this way -- if I agree to pay your rent, or give you a monthly stipend in exchange for your "time" whenever I want or need it, and your rent is coming due each month, and I decide to stall, play games or hold that over you, then there's alraeady and unequal power dynamic where I'm holding that over you every chance I get.

Step out of line, and I won't pay this month's rent.

Fail to comply with my wishes? No food on your table.

To your first point: that element of deception, misleading or false representation is the bottom line there. That's it for me. If you're dating for your free meal, when the guy thinks it's dating for a possible relationship, there's deception involved. It is absolutely dishonest. Sugars are what they are, no hiding intent.

Second point: that just turns into manipulation and borderline abuse, and would make void any agreement in place. I would just end it if threats were made, or if I was pushed to do more than agreed upon.

Boundaries are possibly more important than in other relationships, simply because of that potential power imbalance

[JonnyR]

atskitty2 I agree 100% with the deception thing!

I once met a girl and got to know her over time, and we went out a few times. We had this discussion -- she mentioned how some guy had invited her to LA for a college football game, all expenses paid, overnight trip, etc...

I asked her if she liked him, and she said no.

I went through the entire thing, explaining to her that I thought it was very wrong to go with a guy that you KNEW you did not like on such an expensive outing just to get a free trip out of it. She said she didn't care and was going to do it anyway.

A few days later, she sends me pictures of her at the game, gloating about her choice...

Needless to say, I stopped talking to her that day and never wanted anything to do with her again.

So sad that a lot of folks think this is ok...almost as if, "well if he's offering..." like it's almost the provider's fault for being "naive" to the fact that they are being used...very "cringe" as the kids say nowadays!

And so I agree 100% in the reverse -- at least moralistically, if I got into a sugar dating situation, I would always be upfront about my expectations, my boundaries, and make everything above board before we even began anything, and I would have a very low tolerance for deception, or crossing those lines.

[jns]

atskitty2 I agree 100% with the deception thing!

I once met a girl and got to know her over time, and we went out a few times. We had this discussion -- she mentioned how some guy had invited her to LA for a college football game, all expenses paid, overnight trip, etc...

I asked her if she liked him, and she said no.

I went through the entire thing, explaining to her that I thought it was very wrong to go with a guy that you KNEW you did not like on such an expensive outing just to get a free trip out of it. She said she didn't care and was going to do it anyway.

A few days later, she sends me pictures of her at the game, gloating about her choice...

Needless to say, I stopped talking to her that day and never wanted anything to do with her again.

So sad that a lot of folks think this is ok...almost as if, "well if he's offering..." like it's almost the provider's fault for being "naive" to the fact that they are being used...very "cringe" as the kids say nowadays!

And so I agree 100% in the reverse -- at least moralistically, if I got into a sugar dating situation, I would always be upfront about my expectations, my boundaries, and make everything above board before we even began anything, and I would have a very low tolerance for deception, or crossing those lines.

I'm not sure if what she did was wrong. Did she say she disliked him or was she indifferent about him? She got a free trip out of it. Was he expecting a romance to follow? I could see a guy who was interested in a girl who was indifferent about him doing that to see if he could spark more interest, if he had the money to do it. Men and women don't necessarily know what they really want until they have had some time together. She must have classified him as not being dangerous to her. The situation seems transactional which is ok with some people.

[JonnyR]

Yeah, unfortunately, she said there was no way she was into him or was ever going to date him.

I asked her if HE knew that -- and she laughed it off -- meaning, he did not.

And by extension, yes, I think that he also felt like she was going with him because she "liked" him and that there was a chance of something more.

It was not transparent.

And no, he was not a danger -- probably a nice-enough guy with money, who was just trying to get a woman to like him.

--> you are right though -- some men like "challenges" and just the "chance" (you're saying there's a chance!) that he might convince the woman to like him, so I'm not opposed to that at all -- so long as the woman was up front about her not being interested, but going with it just to see how things go, or as "friends".

[atskitty2]

Well, I hate to get too into the weeds with analyzing this, but I'll be the crusty ol' lady here and say that, it's just another indicator of how selfish we can be in dating. There's just not a lot of mindfulness, consideration or intention with some people. Not talking about the sugar sitch, but in the instance you mention with that girl. It's about "what's in it for me", rather than goal-oriented meeting and dating. It reminds me of the movement back to "courtship" for many people, and I certainly understand why.

Recalling my early days back to dating, after the divorce. As I mentioned earlier in the post, I briefly bought into that whole idea of dinner dates for fun, and what my friends were doing. I found that that just didn't feel right, or good to me. And I quickly learned, through candid conversations with men, that they were keenly aware, and disapproved of these behaviors and were on watch for possible users, and weeding out that potential. My male friends resented so much of our behaviors, and it was clear to me that it just becomes a circle jerk of everyone trying to get one over on the other one. Get 'em before they get you, kinda thing. Ridiculous.

Talking to my girl friends, it was very much a "use them, cuz they'd use us" attitude, with regard to the sexual usery that was often felt. Such an uncomfortable dynamic, those days. I think, until I said something, my lady friends thought this was just fair play, even on the many, many occasions when physical affection was never exchanged.

Anyway, I think there's definitely value in what jns says, about sometimes, it takes time to know if we really wanna pursue something with someone. For me, it definitely takes a minute. I knew I wanted to see more of my current partner, on the night we met, but did I think we'd still be together now? No, didn't see that coming. The key is honesty, communication and maybe even before all that, is to understand ourselves, what we want and need from a partner.

[JonnyR]

It would be great to get the perspective of someone who has done this on the sugar-baby side of things vs. the sugar daddy/mommy side of things.

I also think that online dating, dating apps, etc, have really taken things down a dark road...at least with the older apps like the ancient match.com days, you actually had to WRITE each other! There was no swiping...you had to take a moment, read a profile, write something catchy, and then correspond for a few rounds to take things to the next level.

I seemed to have a lot more success with that model, than with the current "swipe" model...that or I'm just getting older and ageing out! ?