Sugar Dating

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women were property. They had to exchange things to get shelter and goods of their own. In the 1970s and 1980s women started working for pay en masse.

Since the 1970s, some average/middle income women accumulated money to spend freely (eg discretionary spending). As a response, some men have reacted by getting in on the game — and exchanging their services (attention / affection /car repairs) for women. They receive money, goods and other not-easily-monetized services.

You can substitute any gender / orientation into this common and age-old scenario

That’s just not true. Women worked together with men since the beginning of humanity. It is the wealth accumulation in capitalism era allowed some men to take women as property

Ok… Capitalism era is a very long time. Are you talking Adam Smith era?

Either way this exchange is not new -/ and I don’t think people should continue to feign shock and express judgement. It’s silly

Somewhere since 15th century women could become wives and work for the household if upper society. Most still worked . Prostitution was very limited, considered against morals and contained. it’s not like women were selling themselves en masse as a gender and the men were buying en masse. My great grandmother was working fields while married so were most other women in her village.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women were property. They had to exchange things to get shelter and goods of their own. In the 1970s and 1980s women started working for pay en masse.

Since the 1970s, some average/middle income women accumulated money to spend freely (eg discretionary spending). As a response, some men have reacted by getting in on the game — and exchanging their services (attention / affection /car repairs) for women. They receive money, goods and other not-easily-monetized services.

You can substitute any gender / orientation into this common and age-old scenario

That’s just not true. Women worked together with men since the beginning of humanity. It is the wealth accumulation in capitalism era allowed some men to take women as property

Ok… Capitalism era is a very long time. Are you talking Adam Smith era?

Either way this exchange is not new -/ and I don’t think people should continue to feign shock and express judgement. It’s silly

Somewhere since 15th century women could become wives and work for the household if upper society. Most still worked . Prostitution was very limited, considered against morals and contained. it’s not like women were selling themselves en masse as a gender and the men were buying en masse. My great grandmother was working fields while married so were most other women in her village.

Isn’t PP’s point that a woman even agreeing to marriage was the sale?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women were property. They had to exchange things to get shelter and goods of their own. In the 1970s and 1980s women started working for pay en masse.

Since the 1970s, some average/middle income women accumulated money to spend freely (eg discretionary spending). As a response, some men have reacted by getting in on the game — and exchanging their services (attention / affection /car repairs) for women. They receive money, goods and other not-easily-monetized services.

You can substitute any gender / orientation into this common and age-old scenario

That’s just not true. Women worked together with men since the beginning of humanity. It is the wealth accumulation in capitalism era allowed some men to take women as property

Ok… Capitalism era is a very long time. Are you talking Adam Smith era?

Either way this exchange is not new -/ and I don’t think people should continue to feign shock and express judgement. It’s silly

Somewhere since 15th century women could become wives and work for the household if upper society. Most still worked . Prostitution was very limited, considered against morals and contained. it’s not like women were selling themselves en masse as a gender and the men were buying en masse. My great grandmother was working fields while married so were most other women in her village.

Isn’t PP’s point that a woman even agreeing to marriage was the sale?

Yes that’s his point : equalize married women to highly paid prostitutes. Which is wrong at its core. He’s a sick individual who doesn’t understand that parenting is the hardest job in the world, and even in the wealthiest families wives performed as lot of social tasks and functions . Men married often to merge and preserve wealth, transfer legacy, give kids a certain status and upbringing, have secure household to fall back on between the wars etc
Prostitutes offer none of that to men - they only give sex and receive money

[Anonymous]

I don’t know who “he” is.

I’m a mom of multiples — and I am not weighing on paid sex. Readers conflate messages and imagine authors. Fine.

I personally think prostitution is sad and SHOULD NOT be glorified: I don’t think sex is fun for a women — without affection and security. I am just wondering why we are still taking about this and who is behind the gender wars on line

[Anonymous]

Why are there influencers who say men can’t find a woman? And at the same time, say women are preying on men online to eat “free meals” (literally). That is troubling to me!

Young guys might believe this stuff ..:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women were property. They had to exchange things to get shelter and goods of their own. In the 1970s and 1980s women started working for pay en masse.

Since the 1970s, some average/middle income women accumulated money to spend freely (eg discretionary spending). As a response, some men have reacted by getting in on the game — and exchanging their services (attention / affection /car repairs) for women. They receive money, goods and other not-easily-monetized services.

You can substitute any gender / orientation into this common and age-old scenario

That’s just not true. Women worked together with men since the beginning of humanity. It is the wealth accumulation in capitalism era allowed some men to take women as property

Ok… Capitalism era is a very long time. Are you talking Adam Smith era?

Either way this exchange is not new -/ and I don’t think people should continue to feign shock and express judgement. It’s silly

Somewhere since 15th century women could become wives and work for the household if upper society. Most still worked . Prostitution was very limited, considered against morals and contained. it’s not like women were selling themselves en masse as a gender and the men were buying en masse. My great grandmother was working fields while married so were most other women in her village.

Is this like a “Brigerton” but in 15th Century Europe? Are you sure?

Working in field … um, okay. I am
sure that was a all hands on deck enterprise … including children. Animals too, to pull things (children were used to push and pull things).

You are sort of bring up other issues here. I can’t follow

[Anonymous]

I want to know what kind of leather goods medieval sugar babies received from their sponsors.

Would the payments extend to covering slate roofs or only basic thatch?

What would be required to ensure at least a suckling pig, barrel of mead, and a Yule log for the holidays?

Extra credit if you have any contemporaneous documentary evidence that "Droit du Seigneur" was actually practiced.

[Anonymous]

It is considered easy money for some women. They get their apartment rent paid for and expensive leather purses paid for.

It would be difficult to for a woman to continue this lifestyle after age 35.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious what this is like in reality.

If you are a guy (assuming older) or girl (assuming younger) who has been in a real sugar situation, I'd love to hear some specifics. What was exchanged for what? What were the dates like? What were the expectations? How long have the relationships lasted? What were the ages on both sides?

It is prostitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are there influencers who say men can’t find a woman? And at the same time, say women are preying on men online to eat “free meals” (literally). That is troubling to me!

Young guys might believe this stuff ..:

Read some of the dating expectations.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think people are honest on line. Why would anyone take what is written online for truth? Isn’t the problem the system then?

Why are women still doing that ? why are men? No one I talk to likes it!

[Anonymous]

medieval sugar babies. I think of that time as so dirty. I mean they used to bleed people out.
I sure the europeans were doing odd things to women with leather, but the women only got fed for their time.

[Anonymous]

(and future use). I did laugh, don’t get me wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious what this is like in reality.

If you are a guy (assuming older) or girl (assuming younger) who has been in a real sugar situation, I'd love to hear some specifics. What was exchanged for what? What were the dates like? What were the expectations? How long have the relationships lasted? What were the ages on both sides?

In reality it means either you are a loser with more money than game; or you just really like the idea of paying a woman to do everything you want. Both pretty grim indicators about your ability to relate to people and form relationships. It seems more mentally healthy to just have a lot of fun hobbies then visit an AMP every so often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women were property. They had to exchange things to get shelter and goods of their own. In the 1970s and 1980s women started working for pay en masse.

Since the 1970s, some average/middle income women accumulated money to spend freely (eg discretionary spending). As a response, some men have reacted by getting in on the game — and exchanging their services (attention / affection /car repairs) for women. They receive money, goods and other not-easily-monetized services.

You can substitute any gender / orientation into this common and age-old scenario

That’s just not true. Women worked together with men since the beginning of humanity. It is the wealth accumulation in capitalism era allowed some men to take women as property

Ok… Capitalism era is a very long time. Are you talking Adam Smith era?

Either way this exchange is not new -/ and I don’t think people should continue to feign shock and express judgement. It’s silly

Somewhere since 15th century women could become wives and work for the household if upper society. Most still worked . Prostitution was very limited, considered against morals and contained. it’s not like women were selling themselves en masse as a gender and the men were buying en masse. My great grandmother was working fields while married so were most other women in her village.

Is this like a “Brigerton” but in 15th Century Europe? Are you sure?

Working in field … um, okay. I am
sure that was a all hands on deck enterprise … including children. Animals too, to pull things (children were used to push and pull things).

You are sort of bring up other issues here. I can’t follow

I don't get what you are not getting. Maybe you should read better? PP male poster said marriage was a form of prostitution. From that, a false and easy conclusion of a sick mind follows that "all married women=prostitutes"
I disagreed and stated married and unmarried women worked alongside men since the beginning of civilization. Birthing and parenting children is also work that prostitutes don't do.