.

[User#16452]

.

 

[Goiter]

Were I to enter into a sugar relationship over the medium/long-term, I would be looking for something exclusive. Almost any long-term male-female relationship functions better with a degree of mutual intimacy, affection, and trust. I'm sure swingers and their pals probably disagree, but I feel like some singular commitment helps foster this.

That said, if we assume SD/SB relationships often feature an age disparity (probably not always true), I would have a hard time telling a young woman she couldn't date outside of the relationship. Doesn't she deserve to find love, happiness, marriage, etc?

 

[raumsagan]

I answered open for both, (I am / I prefer), but perhaps this is because I am not entirely familiar with how the whole thing works, particularly what arrangements really look like in practice.

 

[Ches]

My personal view on this is, I want my SD relationship to look and feel as much as real relationship does. A lot of you may not agree with me, but I really don't feel comfortable talking to SD about money matters in person, only through email/texts/chat.

With that said, I only do exclusive SD for me especially if the arrangement is monthly amd there is some degree of security, however, the SD can have other partner such as wife/gf/escort since my personal belief is that, the reason why he actually spends that much money on SB is to have more freedom, and flexibility while keeping a woman provides him not just physical intimacy but a real relationship that is based on mutual trust and affection.

 

[Wwanderer]

One poll we don't need on TAG is about who is champ at coming up with great, interesting and discussion-provoking polls; the answer is obvious!

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

I answered "Sugar Daddy - Open" in the poll.

For me personally, it is the only option that works or makes sense. First of all, I have never in my life managed to be faithful to any one woman for long...like not even a year, despite making a sincere effort on more than one occasion. It simply isn't in me it seems. Moreover, I have hurt women I care about , badly in some cases, by failing to be faithful/exclusive; my plan is to never again promise it. In addition, I travel so much that separations of weeks and months are ordinary; I don't think it would be reasonable to ask a sugar partner to tolerate such long absences in an exclusive situation. And finally...basically echoing one of @Goiter 's points, it is absurd to imagine that a guy my age can satisfy all of the sexual, emotional and romantic needs of a beautiful woman young enough to be my daughter or granddaghter. I want my sugar partners to have more, not less , of what they need from life due to our arrangement; I want to add, not add and subtract.

Aside from the above considerations that apply to me personally but not everyone, I think there are many general advantages to non-exclusive sugar (and other, for that matter) relationships that people ought to consider. One is the reverse of a point that @Goiter mentioned. Namely, many people go to the sugar bowl specifically seeking NSA ("no strings attached") relationships. In other words, they want all the fun and pleasure of dating without tying themselves down in any sense; basically they wish to avoid commitments. Exclusivity encourages/breeds commitment, as @Goiter notes, and is thus counter to having an NSA situation. Exclusivity is also counter to NSA in another sense; it makes the sugar partners dependent on each other. For example, a woman who has an exclusive SD generously supporting all of her financial needs or most of them cannot leave the relationship because it is making her unhappy in some way without putting herself in a difficult, maybe very difficult, financial situation. (For example, I know an SB who had to choose between enduring damaging psychological abuse from an SD or giving up an income of about US$150,000/year plus lots of other perks such as expensive gifts and first class international travel.)

-Ww

 

[Sudsy]

I also answered "Sugar Daddy - Open" in the poll. I'm not a monogamous sort myself, nor would I expect anyone else to be.

 

[raumsagan]

Namely, many people go to the sugar bowl specifically seeking NSA ("no strings attached") relationships.

After reading the insightful thread started by Ches, I have gotten a better idea of the general concept. In that case I tend to agree mostly with the points raised by Wwanderer and stand by my initial answer. A non-exclusive, NSA relationship would work for me if I did get into such a relationship.

 

[Solong]

There is a problem, that is not being factored, where the sugar-baby may jump to another relationship more easily. More so than the man, because she isn't investing financial resources and is less vulnerable in terms of not being married and worried about being exposed.

"The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."

Exclusive is a relative term, when in fact it's seen as or will become just a temporary arrangement.

 

[Ches]

There is a problem, that is not being factored, where the sugar-baby may jump to another relationship more easily. More so than the man, because she isn't investing financial resources and is less vulnerable in terms of not being married and worried about being exposed.

"The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."

Exclusive is a relative term, when in fact it's seen as or will become just a temporary arrangement.

Don't you think a sugar baby actually also have a life and a career of her own? Her life is just starting and she has yet accomplished a lot of things. The risks are fairly similar. High caliber sugar babes are actually career woman or soon to be career women i.e. University students.

The hard part is when they look for employment after graduating. If they were exposed, do you think people will still take them seriously considering companies do extensive background checks before hiring?

The thing is, with sugar dating, if you are not willing to trust and to compromise a little, then don't go there.

 

[Wwanderer]

Imo and experience, escorts and SBs and sex workers in general should not be put in some sort of hierarchy, as though one kind of work was more moral or respectable or admirable than others. It all involves basically the same sorts of women, indeed the same sorts of women as those who are not involved in the p4p world at all.

-Ww

 

[namae]

I answered "Sugar Daddy - Open" in the poll.

For me personally, it is the only option that works or makes sense. First of all, I have never in my life managed to be faithful to any one woman for long...like not even a year, despite making a sincere effort on more than one occasion. It simply isn't in me it seems. Moreover, I have hurt women I care about , badly in some cases, by failing to be faithful/exclusive; my plan is to never again promise it. In addition, I travel so much that separations of weeks and months are ordinary; I don't think it would be reasonable to ask a sugar partner to tolerate such long absences in an exclusive situation. And finally...basically echoing one of @Goiter 's points, it is absurd to imagine that a guy my age can satisfy all of the sexual, emotional and romantic needs of a beautiful woman young enough to be my daughter or granddaghter. I want my sugar partners to have more, not less , of what they need from life due to our arrangement; I want to add, not add and subtract.

Aside from the above considerations that apply to me personally but not everyone, I think there are many general advantages to non-exclusive sugar (and other, for that matter) relationships that people ought to consider. One is the reverse of a point that @Goiter mentioned. Namely, many people go to the sugar bowl specifically seeking NSA ("no strings attached") relationships. In other words, they want all the fun and pleasure of dating without tying themselves down in any sense; basically they wish to avoid commitments. Exclusivity encourages/breeds commitment, as @Goiter notes, and is thus counter to having an NSA situation. Exclusivity is also counter to NSA in another sense; it makes the sugar partners dependent on each other. For example, a woman who has an exclusive SD generously supporting all of her financial needs or most of them cannot leave the relationship because it is making her unhappy in some way without putting herself in a difficult, maybe very difficult, financial situation. (For example, I know an SB who had to choose between enduring damaging psychological abuse from an SD or giving up an income of about US$150,000/year plus lots of other perks such as expensive gifts and first class international travel.)

-Ww

From the SD perspective, what are the pros and cons of Sugar Baby (Open) vs. FWB? ( Sexfriendo)

 

[Ches]

I'm so sorry if my post may have come out as doing the hierarchy, I never meant that, never did I thought of any other activity lower. If sorry if I came across that way.

 

[User#8628]

There is a problem, that is not being factored, where the sugar-baby may jump to another relationship more easily. More so than the man, because she isn't investing financial resources and is less vulnerable in terms of not being married and worried about being exposed.

"The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."

Exclusive is a relative term, when in fact it's seen as or will become just a temporary arrangement.

Depends on the situation. Like ww said before, a SB might not easily be able to leave a daddy who supports her a lot financially. Also some guys more on fairly easy after they get bored with a beautiful girl.

 

[RandomTokyoGuy]

Depends on the situation. Like ww said before, a SB might not easily be able to leave a daddy who supports her a lot financially. Also some guys more on fairly easy after they get bored with a beautiful girl.

I actually have fairly little pity for that person. If you are not able move on from that situation given such an allowance, you are either completely incapable of dealing with money or too greedy. Maybe it would help to question the self-entitled living standards.

According to @Ches most SB should have their own career and therefore be at least self dependant regarding their basic needs.

 

[RandomTokyoGuy]

To the original question, I actually have too little experience in sugar dating, to really have a set opinion.
I think for one it depends if the intimate interaction is more like with a service provider, e.g. covered or with a gf, e.g. uncovered.
But I think there are a lot more factors, e.g. how often you see each other, is she eventually staying at your place, schedule conflicts caused by complete openness...

I think I would expect my SB to be single. Not sure it would sit right with me, if I knew she was just freshly in love with another guy. But I guess that would depend on if the relation was more than just meeting an escort with dinner included.

 

[Sinapse]

Depends on the situation. Like ww said before, a SB might not easily be able to leave a daddy who supports her a lot financially. Also some guys more on fairly easy after they get bored with a beautiful girl.

Ain't that the truth! That's why something based solely on looks could never work for me.. But granted, everything has to start there!

 

[meiji]

There is a problem, that is not being factored, where the sugar-baby may jump to another relationship more easily. More so than the man, because she isn't investing financial resources and is less vulnerable in terms of not being married and worried about being exposed.

I don't really see how it's "more so than the man" - a woman is essentially sacrificing her youth in these circumstances and if it doesn't work out for her long term, she doesn't get that back. Money, you can always make more of. There's so many stories of men trading in their wives and GFs for a "newer model" that its a cliche. Both have something to lose here.

 

[Wwanderer]

I don't really see how it's "more so than the man" - a woman is essentially sacrificing her youth in these circumstances and if it doesn't work out for her long term, she doesn't get that back. Money, you can always make more of. There's so many stories of men trading in their wives and GFs for a "newer model" that its a cliche. Both have something to lose here.

Another post I wish could like it more than once...

Imo, money and time are the most overestimated and most underestimated resources on the planet, respectively.

-Ww

 

[DJV]

I answered "SD/Open",
It's because of most above reasons, plus I want a SB to have the possibility of a (completely) private part of their life that they don't have to tell me about (like I do myself). Also it helps preventing jealousy.

Thanks to JBlair for her introspecting questions

 

[Solong]

I don't really see how it's "more so than the man" - a woman is essentially sacrificing her youth in these circumstances and if it doesn't work out for her long term, she doesn't get that back. Money, you can always make more of. There's so many stories of men trading in their wives and GFs for a "newer model" that its a cliche. Both have something to lose here.

Men are aging at the same rate as women. The future is not guaranteed, and in fact men die younger than women on average.

And many guys have lost their fortunes or jobs. When the money went, in numerous cases, the women left too.

There are an equal amount or arguably even more stories of women dumping men and switching to a new one. The majority of divorces, for example, are initiated by women. The term for women jumping from man to man, in the most beneficial way for herself and selfishly, is called "monkey branching".

 

[meiji]

Men are aging at the same rate as women.

We're talking about sugar dating here. The vast VAST majority of sugar dates are older men paying younger women for company. I'm still not sure how it's easier for women to jump relationships.

 

[Ches]

Men are aging at the same rate as women. The future is not guaranteed, and in fact men die younger than women on average.

And many guys have lost their fortunes or jobs. When the money went, in numerous cases, the women left too.

There are an equal amount or arguably even more stories of women dumping men and switching to a new one. The majority of divorces, for example, are initiated by women. The term for women jumping from man to man, in the most beneficial way for herself and selfishly, is called "monkey branching".

Sugar dating is not a matter of who gave more, who is more at risk, who lost more, who gained more, it maybe an arrangement, but this is not a business.

When you spend time with your SD and he has nothing but been good to you, sometimes, the girl falls in love. That is very hard to admit, but we SB, are human beings too. And that makes everything sooo natural. However, SB should know how to keep her feelings at bay. She must never be demanding for time and attention. She should understand that SD are usually married and they compensate to their "lack of committment" to their SB through their allowance. Some SB even think about their SD when they touch themselves, seriously!

The point being is that, if you only think about who lost more, who benefited less, who put more on the table, then sugar dating is definitely not for you.

 

[Wwanderer]

What @Ches said!

-Ww

 

[MB68]

Sugar dating is not a matter of who gave more, who is more at risk, who lost more, who gained more, it maybe an arrangement, but this is not a business.

When you spend time with your SD and he has nothing but been good to you, sometimes, the girl falls in love. That is very hard to admit, but we SB, are human beings too. And that makes everything sooo natural. However, SB should know how to keep her feelings at bay. She must never be demanding for time and attention. She should understand that SD are usually married and they compensate to their "lack of committment" to their SB through their allowance. Some SB even think about their SD when they touch themselves, seriously!

The point being is that, if you only think about who lost more, who benefited less, who put more on the table, then sugar dating is definitely not for you.

Omg, your SD is one helluva lucky guy