Interesting idea. I seem to not be able to access the site ( SeekingArrangement.com). Not that I have enough money in any case...
Not that I have enough money in any case...
And, presumably, also too much.
Making it Easy for "Sugar Daddies" to Connect With "Sugar Babies"
31–38 of 38 posts
Re: Making it Easy for "Sugar Daddies" to Connect With "Sugar Babies"
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also emotionally challenged.
Making decisions in a rational manner is usually well regarded in business. Why not apply the same principles to one's sex life? It sounds sociopathic, I know, but it's a serious and honest question. Why is it cool to be a good homo economicus in one's professional life, but NOT in one's personal life?
Friendship is supposed to be non-transactional. That is, a true friend is someone who values the relationship itself over what s/he gets out of it. If you want a rational explanation for this, think about how, in an alliance, you need to be able to trust the other person not to backstab you if you are temporarily weak.
Most people pay a lot of attention to figuring out whether the other person values the relationship over what they're getting out of it. (Citation: all gossip, every Shakespeare play, all of literature generally).
Re: Making it Easy for "Sugar Daddies" to Connect With "Sugar Babies"
#33I found this very interesting. The thing that I can't stop thinking about is: Where is the line between prostitution and a relationship? I'm not talking about the legal sense; I don't find that interesting at all. I'm talking about the moral sense. For example, if I paid a woman for sex right now, I would feel bad about it. This would be the case even if she was not whorish at all, even if it was the first time she e…
If you were in the hospital for an extended period, you could pay someone to sit and talk with you. But you couldn't pay them to do it spontaneously because they cared.
You can pay someone for sex now. You can't pay someone to think about you all day and be consumed with anticipation just before you meet.
You can pay someone to go out with you to a social occasion. You can't pay someone to share a knowing glance across the table when you have some shared observation of the behavior of a third party. When you know before you look that you're going to have this shared observation.
And I'm not putting sex work down; it also has its place. It's just not the same as a relationship.
Re: Making it Easy for "Sugar Daddies" to Connect With "Sugar Babies"
#34I found this very interesting. The thing that I can't stop thinking about is: Where is the line between prostitution and a relationship? I'm not talking about the legal sense; I don't find that interesting at all. I'm talking about the moral sense. For example, if I paid a woman for sex right now, I would feel bad about it. This would be the case even if she was not whorish at all, even if it was the first time she e…
I find it somewhat pathetic that these are men looking for a prostitution service, then going to great lengths to psychologically justify to themselves that this is something other than prostitution.
They're looking for the convenience of a prostitute, without the hassle (logistical, legal) and the "worry" that might come with a normal prostitute (guilt, higher disease risk, whatever).
I'm happily married, but I don't think calling these people "pathetic" is appropriate. Everyone's sexuality is different, and their own. Judging someone else like that doesn't seem right.
Re: Making it Easy for "Sugar Daddies" to Connect With "Sugar Babies"
#35I find this business model much more agreeable than the adultery-only sites, which seems to me to only be enabling dishonesty. Here, presumably, everything is on the table. It doesn't involve purposely lying to your spouse as much as it does making arrangements for, er, extra "services"
Not that I would go for anything like this. I've found from watching myself and others that the line between sex and emotional relationship is too blurry for to dance around for a long time.
I really wonder who is screwing whom here. Can you have a one-night stand and walk away? Sure. Can you spend tens of thousands of dollars on someone and then walk away? Sure -- it's only money. How about your time? How much of your personal time do you want to spend wooing and chatting up and getting to know somebody who's there only as a sort of human rental car?
It's the time investment that doesn't make much sense. If you're paying for sex seems like you drop your cash and badda boom, badda bing the transaction is done. If you're looking for a relationship, you spend your money and time and build a knowledge of somebody. But this is almost like saying "I'm too insecure to meet people, so I'd just like to pay you and pretend we like each other for a period of time. Then we'll both move on"
I'm not buying it. I think these guys have emotional needs they're covering up by rationalizing dating into a business deal. Since their emotional problems aren't going away, and since there will always be young, attractive girls who want more money, it looks like a solid business model. I'm just glad I'm not a customer.
Re: Making it Easy for "Sugar Daddies" to Connect With "Sugar Babies"
#36I found this very interesting. The thing that I can't stop thinking about is: Where is the line between prostitution and a relationship? I'm not talking about the legal sense; I don't find that interesting at all. I'm talking about the moral sense. For example, if I paid a woman for sex right now, I would feel bad about it. This would be the case even if she was not whorish at all, even if it was the first time she e…
I find it somewhat pathetic that these are men looking for a prostitution service, then going to great lengths to psychologically justify to themselves that this is something other than prostitution.
It's very simple: transactional sex is less pleasurable than a sexual relationship. It seems only natural that a market for a higher-end service than simple prostitution exists.
These men could pay for sex, but they are willing to pay extra for the feeling that they are not paying for sex.
Re: Making it Easy for "Sugar Daddies" to Connect With "Sugar Babies"
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
you bring up an interesting point. also, what happens when one of these girls ends up seriously hurt or even dead? who now owns the responsibility. i just can't imagine this lasting very long, especially as it becomes more and more popular.
What do you mean who owns the responsibility? The person who hurt or killed her, of course. I don't see the gray area. How is, what is in essence, a niche dating site responsible for what its members do any more so than the mainstream ones?
the person who spilled the hot coffee bought from mcdonalds was responsible for it, but somehow mcdonalds got stuck with paying for the lawsuit and the alleged damages.
to a certain degree, the lawyers will push that it's the sites responsibility to check who is on the site.
i'm not saying it will happen, but it's just something to think about.
Re: Making it Easy for "Sugar Daddies" to Connect With "Sugar Babies"
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making decisions in a rational manner is usually well regarded in business. Why not apply the same principles to one's sex life? It sounds sociopathic, I know, but it's a serious and honest question. Why is it cool to be a good homo economicus in one's professional life, but NOT in one's personal life?
Because it cheapens you and lowers your self-worth. You are sub-communicating to yourself that you are not attractive and nobody would want to spend their time with you unless you're forking off cold hard cash. To someone with high self-esteem and some regard for the non-utilitarian value of human relationships, that escort/prostitute money can spent on a new cologne and a funny hat and much fun could be had for a wh…
[deleted]