Just Joined Seeking Arrangement

[e-smile]

Why is that? Is there something about an exchange of money that precludes real affection for some reason in your opinion?

It may seem odd, but I am much *more* willing to give money to a woman who likes me and who would be happy to spend time with me anyway than one who doesn't and wouldn't.

-Ww

There is a obviously a difference between dating and sugar dating.

There is a difference between having a relation with someone and spoil her out of your own choice if you want to and being in a relation with someone who expect being spoiled as a part of the arrangement.

 

[Wwanderer]

There is a obviously a difference between dating and sugar dating.

There is a difference between having a relation with someone and spoil her out of your own choice if you want to and being in a relation with someone who expect being spoiled as a part of the arrangement.

Well, I hear you, and what you say obviously has some validity, but as a wise woman recently pointed out in another thread, these things can be "very complicated" (https://tokyoadultguide.com/threads/how-do-you-meet-a-provider-outside-her-shop.15262/#post-113209), to put it mildly!

My main point is that while the distinction you mention is often clear at the beginning, it is easy (and perhaps natural) for the situation to evolve into a gray zone which is not exactly either. And a clear case of one can even become the opposite. And through it all, both sex and money are involved. All of these things have happened to me on more than one occasions. I could tell the stories (without naming names and with some blurring of details to protect other the privacy of my partners), but it would make for long posts that probably wouldn't be of that much interest to many people, if anyone.

Fwiiw, I think that I am more likely than most people to find myself in such gray zone situations in large part because I don't form connections to women with all these pre-defined and rigid categories in mind. Moreover, the sort of women who are comfortable in a relationship with me are also usually relatively unconcerned with social scripts and conventional labels. As a result most of the important relationships in my life are impossible to describe accurately with a simple and familiar label of any sort; each of them tends to be rather unique. I like it that way.

-Ww

 

[e-smile]

Well, I hear you, and what you say obviously has some validity, but as a wise woman recently pointed out in another thread, these things can be "very complicated" (https://tokyoadultguide.com/threads/how-do-you-meet-a-provider-outside-her-shop.15262/#post-113209), to put it mildly!

My main point is that while the distinction you mention is often clear at the beginning, it is easy (and perhaps natural) for the situation to evolve into a gray zone which is not exactly either. And a clear case of one can even become the opposite. And through it all, both sex and money are involved. All of these things have happened to me on more than one occasions. I could tell the stories (without naming names and with some blurring of details to protect other the privacy of my partners), but it would make for long posts that probably wouldn't be of that much interest to many people, if anyone.

Fwiiw, I think that I am more likely than most people to find myself in such gray zone situations in large part because I don't form connections to women with all these pre-defined and rigid categories in mind. Moreover, the sort of women who are comfortable in a relationship with me are also usually relatively unconcerned with social scripts and conventional labels. As a result most of the important relationships in my life are impossible to describe accurately with a simple and familiar label of any sort; each of them tends to be rather unique. I like it that way.

-Ww

A relation with an escort can also evolve if you become a regular. That doesn't make here one of your conquests.

Even relation with your private driver had better evolve with more complicity over time, it's better for everyone if you get along. But just because you think you became friends doesn't mean he'll drive you for free.

And if I stick with the metaphor, if your SB is your private driver, the escort would be a taxi driver and they both drive people for money and both can have a nice chat with you on the way to your destination.

 

[Wwanderer]

A relation with an escort can also evolve if you become a regular. That doesn't make here one of your conquests.

Even relation with your private driver had better evolve with more complicity over time, it's better for everyone if you get along. But just because you think you became friends doesn't mean he'll drive you for free.

And if I stick with the metaphor, if your SB is your private driver, the escort would be a taxi driver and they both drive people for money and both can have a nice chat with you on the way to your destination.

You introduced the (valid) distinction between a fee being required (before your driver will driver will drive you or whatever) and the situation where you insist on providing some monetary support that is not required by the driver or is even refused by the driver, part or all of the time, simply because you want the driver to have it. That is the distinction that can become blurred and change over time ime.

Anyway, I can see that you want to chop up human connections into neat categories and that money passing between two people is of decisive/critical importance to your definition of the categories. That's ok; it is normal in fact. My view is far more unusual, even weird if you wish, but it is *possible*. I can assure you of that.

-Ww

 

[e-smile]

You introduced the (valid) distinction between a fee being required (before your driver will driver will drive you or whatever) and the situation where you insist on providing some monetary support that is not required by the driver or is even refused by the driver, part or all of the time, simply because you want the driver to have it. That is the distinction that can become blurred and change over time ime.

Anyway, I can see that you want to chop up human connections into neat categories and that money passing between two people is of decisive/critical importance to your definition of the categories. That's ok; it is normal in fact. My view is far more unusual, even weird if you wish, but it is *possible*. I can assure you of that.

-Ww

There is nothing weird about trying to convince yourself that the illusion you're paying for is actually reality. It makes sense to me, I sometime convince myself that I won the World Cup with my national team and it wasn't just a video game.

 

[Wwanderer]

There is nothing weird about trying to convince yourself that the illusion you're paying for is actually reality. It makes sense to me, I sometime convince myself that I won the World Cup with my national team and it wasn't just a video game.

Nor is there anything weird about refusing to accept realities that challenge your sense of what is possible.

But I am not sure that you quite absorbed what I wrote above. Let me make it more explicit: I have more than once (but not many times) had sugar arrangements evolve into connections in which we fought over money, with her resisting or refusing to accept my support while I pushed her to do so. I have also had ones in which an SB sought to spend more, MUCH more, time with me but did not want any additional money for doing so. And, to be complete, I have seen it go the other way too...where a relationship started out in a conventional way (no money changing hands), but after I started providing some financial support, it became essential to her understanding of the connection. And there are ones in which both of our attitudes are not so explicit, constant or clear.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

-Ww

 

[e-smile]

Nor is there anything weird about refusing to accept realities that challenge your sense of what is possible.

But I am not sure that you quite absorbed what I wrote above. Let me make it more explicit: I have more than once (but not many times) had sugar arrangements evolve into connections in which we fought over money, with her resisting or refusing to accept my support while I pushed her to do so. I have also had ones in which and SB sought to spend more, MUCH more, time with me but did not want any additional money for doing so. And, to be complete, I have seen it go the other way too...where a relationship started out in a conventional way (no money changing hands), but after I started providing some financial support, it became essential to her understanding of the connection. And there are ones in which both of our attitudes are not so explicit, constant or clear.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

-Ww

What you are saying is that sugar dating can evolve into normal dating. No problem, when it does it's not sugar dating anymore because there is no more sugar required.

Same if an escort decides you don't need to pay anymore for sex, the intimate moment you'll share will no more be a P4P session.

“Anyone can make the simple complicated.
Creativity is making the complicated simple.”
Charles Mingus

 

[Wwanderer]

What you are saying is that sugar dating can evolve into normal dating.

if an escort decides you don't need to pay anymore for sex, the intimate moment you'll share will no more be a P4P session

Yes, I am saying that, but more than that too. I am saying that there are a gray areas between the two where the role of money in a relationship is not so sharply defined as being required or not required. Many things...including sex and love and physical attraction and casual touching and emotional support and psychological compatibility and so forth...can vary in importance in a relationship across a wide spectrum. It is not a case of just required or not required. Money is no different unless you or your partner make it so in your head.

If you can handle further challenges to your categories, I have also had relationships with women that involved me supporting them financially to a degree but in which there was little or no sexual activity between us.

"Let a hundred flowers blossom"
Mao Zedong

-Ww

 

[e-smile]

Yes, I am saying that, but more than that too. I am saying that there are a gray areas between the two where the role of money in a relationship is not so sharply defined as being required or not required. Many things...including sex and love and physical attraction and casual touching and emotional support and psychological compatibility and so forth...can vary in importance in a relationship across a wide spectrum. It is not a case of just required or not required. Money is no different unless you or your partner make it so in your head.

If you can handle further challenges to your categories, I have also had relationships with women that involved me supporting them financially to a degree but in which there was little or no sexual activity between us.

"Let a hundred flowers blossom"
Mao Zedong

-Ww

what I'm saying is there is a difference between girl company in exchange for money and the company of a girl who's not expecting any material benefit.

I used the word "company" many times, that was to suggest sex is not necessarily on the table. Sometimes escort are also paid for sexless company.

 

[Wwanderer]

what I'm saying is there is a difference between girl company in exchange for money and the company of a girl who's not expecting any material benefit.

We are chasing our tails repetitiously by now and should probably let it go. (Right, everyone who is still reading this?)

But in reply, what I am saying is that there are cases in which the girl's feeling don't fit neatly into the categories of "expecting" or "not expecting" but are more complex, nuanced and varying (and the guy's feelings about any monetary element come into the nature of the relationship too...but let's leave those issues aside for simplicity). I am saying that you could try to define two categories of relationship depending on whether or not the girl is expecting to be taken home at the end of the night or kissed or given a compliment or encouraged to share her deep worries in complete confidence or ... But the two simple categories don't work for those things because you (and we all) realize that her feelings about such matters are not as simple as expected or not expected, required or not required. They might be welcome or unwelcome to varying degrees, and they might be important or unimportant to her across a wide range.

Because you think of money in terms of buying and selling things, you see it as either required or not, but that is just a social convention. There is no reason it has to be regarded any differently than those other things I just listed. And if you and your partner can get your heads free of that convention, you will find that there are A LOT more possibilities to explore. Is that any clearer?

I used the word "company" many times, that was to suggest sex is not necessarily on the table. Sometimes escort are also paid for sexless company.

OK, good...at least we got one point cleared up.

-Ww

 

[MikeH]

But in reply, what I am saying is that there are cases in which the girl's feeling don't fit neatly into the categories

There are two kinds of people; those who want to categorise everything and those who don't . I like to see my world not in black and white but in all the colours of rainbow.

Even most of my encounters with my friends I don't much care to put in neat boxes. I don't think any of them fall nicely to the sugaring category but also none of them is the traditional dating game either where the girl expects you to walk her home and offer a ring in the future.

Normally stuff works when both sides think they are getting more than they are giving. And money is just one of the many things that can be traded.

 

[Wwanderer]

I like to see my world not in black and white but in all the colours of rainbow.

Even most of my encounters with my friends I don't much care to put in neat boxes. I don't think any of them fall nicely to the sugaring category but also none of them is the traditional dating game either where the girl expects you to walk her home and offer a ring in the future.

My experiences are quite similar in that they don't fall into "neat boxes", including sugar dating if you define it in some relatively narrow and standard way (such as the one presented by SA in its advertising and self-promotions). For me "sugaring" is like the "none of the above" box on a multiple-choice quiz; I consider a connection sugaring if it isn't following one of the standard cultural scripts that have simple and well-known names and patterns. Thus, two relationships which I consider to be "sugar" can be VERY different from one another, and to me the best ones are essentially unique...something that a partner and I have created collaboratively to suit ourselves.

Along the same lines, in my discussion above with @e-smile he said that an SB isn't my girlfriend and that sleeping with a lot of escorts or dating a lot of SBs doesn't make me a playboy. He is correct imo. Those are just more conventional categories that also don't fit me and would mislead more than they would inform if used to say something about my relationships.

I was amused to read a sentence in a document today in a TOTALLY different context which reminded the readers that giving something a name doesn't change its reality.

-Ww

 

[Snuggles]

After joining, I've since realized how little time I have to even go and have an initial coffee or drink meet with any of the ladies.

One woman wrote that with her each date was:
¥150,000!!!!

I won't be meeting her! Lol

 

[e-smile]

After joining, I've since realized how little time I have to even go and have an initial coffee or drink meet with any of the ladies.

One woman wrote that with her each date was:
¥150,000!!!!

I won't be meeting her! Lol

 

[Snuggles]

Should you negotiate in person? Some want to do it online beforehand. One just said that 20 k allowance per date was humiliating. Is it? Is there any standard?

 

[User#8628]

Should you negotiate in person? Some want to do it online beforehand. One just said that 20 k allowance per date was humiliating. Is it? Is there any standard?

Its definitely not the norm...
Lowest is maybe 30.000 for a newbie or a very regular looking girl.

 

[TokyoML]

I don't know what the norm is but my expectation is about 10,000 for a dinner date and around 30,000 or play date. (from a guy's perspective). It probably varies a lot between the sugar babies.

 

[Snuggles]

One SB was quite angry about 20k. Said that you should just get an escort.

I'm a rookie at this and making rookie mistakes! Lol

 

[User#8628]

I don't know what the norm is but my expectation is about 10,000 for a dinner date and around 30,000 or play date. (from a guy's perspective). It probably varies a lot between the sugar babies.

Yes, thats not impossible to find i think.

It definitely varies a lot.

 

[Wwanderer]

I don't know what the norm is but my expectation is about 10,000 for a dinner date and around 30,000 or play date. (from a guy's perspective). It probably varies a lot between the sugar babies.

I have met SBs who don't want any cash allowance at all, just want the SD to pay for nice dates and occasional gifts, but they are definitely quite rare.

The market is very broad and depends on lots of factors, but ¥30,000 for a date is definitely at the low end of the spectrum, and I think you will discover that only a very small fraction of Tokyo SBs would find it acceptable. On a per date basis, ¥50,000 appears to me to be somewhere in the middle of the Tokyo market (differs from place to place of course). Basically what @User#8628 said above.

Of course most SBs prefer a monthly allowance to a per date one, and many will accept what amounts to a slightly lower average rater per date if it is the form of a guaranteed monthly amount.

The SB who wants ¥150,000 per date is definitely fairly high up in the Tokyo market scale, though I've encountered higher. If you are willing, please send me a private convo message with the link to her profile page, and I'll have a look. I might even know who she is.

Finally, for me it feels inappropriate in a sugar arrangement to make the allowance dependent on whether or not you have sex. It should be the same amount for all dates, and you should have sex when you both want it. Of course not everyone feels that way, and however the finances are arranged needs to be worked out separately with each sugar partner you have.

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

I once met an extreme newbie and very innocent/naive young Japanese SB who asked me over a meal at our first meeting how much I could offer her per date. When I said ¥50,000 she gasped, put her hand over her mouth and said, "Sugoi! So much! I was hoping for ¥10,000 or at least ¥8,000!" Then she blushed and looked down and exclaimed, "Ooooh, I shouldn't have said that. Please forget it!" So kawaii.

-Ww

 

[e-smile]

@Wwanderer can you tell me what a "date" without sex looks like ?
paying for sex I get the concept but this all seem so strange to me, I'd like to learn more about the guy's motivation in this.

 

[Wwanderer]

@Wwanderer can you tell me what a "date" without sex looks like ?

Sort of like this:

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

@Wwanderer can you tell me what a "date" without sex looks like ?
paying for sex I get the concept but this all seem so strange to me, I'd like to learn more about the guy's motivation in this.

More seriously, I'd like to give you a good answer to your question because I think it is an interesting and even important one, but please be patient. It might be a day or two before I have a chance to write it.

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

¥30,000 for a date is definitely at the low end of the spectrum, and I think you will discover that only a very small fraction of Tokyo SBs would find it acceptable.

Based on what I'm told by someone better informed than me, it probably isn't as hard to find an SB who is ok with ¥30,000 per date as my comment above claims. It may well be worth giving that number as an offer to some SBs and seeing how it goes.

-Ww