Is "sugar" a thing in DMV upper class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I'd say half my friends (I'm male, in my 40s) do this, and that's just the ones who admit to it. We're all in the higher income level (entrepreneurs, finance, lawyers).

Are you one of them?

Where did you meet these friends? College? Grow up together? At work? I'm wondering what i the common denominator. I'm also in my 40s and higher income level (lawyers) and I don't know anyone doing this.
And what are the demographics of their wives? Equivalent education and income level to your friends? I just can't imagine in my social circles the wives not noticing a substantial financial outlay.

I find this interesting. I am also in the high end profession with a lot of friends in their 40s and 50s who can afford this and I don't know anyone with this arrangement. I know lots who cheat, not saying men are innocent. I just don't know anyone sugaring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do married women feel more threatened by the growth of the sugar baby phenomenon? I mean they represent a substitute and alternative to marital sex, and it reduces the marital monopoly on sex.

Yes, this is a threat. My wife would be upset but would get over me cheating on a business trip but if she found out I was spending thousands of dollars a month on a sugar baby, we'd be done.

[Anonymous]

What is new with the sugar baby phenomena is seemingly normal, beautiful girl next door types( educated, clean cut etc) that are available to be with you if you have the resources. It's a very different vibe than having an escort. I've seen women in grad school who are no different than the type of women I would date if I was single and 15 years younger.

This is what money is for. Why be rich if you are stuck not having sex with your unattractive wife who you can't divorce for a myriad of reasons?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do married women feel more threatened by the growth of the sugar baby phenomenon? I mean they represent a substitute and alternative to marital sex, and it reduces the marital monopoly on sex.

Yes, this is a threat. My wife would be upset but would get over me cheating on a business trip but if she found out I was spending thousands of dollars a month on a sugar baby, we'd be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do married women feel more threatened by the growth of the sugar baby phenomenon? I mean they represent a substitute and alternative to marital sex, and it reduces the marital monopoly on sex.

I’m very late joining this thread but the sugar daddy thing is just a new name for an old phenomenon. It was probably most prevalent in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when industrialization meant many young women were moving away from their families but were largely taking jobs that did not provide an income in which you could actually live. There’s good historical research indicating that dating for subsidence was a really important part of the female economy, and it ran the gamut between women who were having extramarital sex and living in apartments paid for by a guy to those who were basically trading make out sessions and some petting for a decent hot meal (make sure he buys you dinner first!). This is why the old female boarding houses were so obsessed with keeping men out — it was a short walk to turning into a bordello! And men used to give gifts that were things like a new dress or shoes — because these girls weren’t making enough to buy themselves friggin shoes!
PP taking about the art/theTer communities in LA and NY-/that’s basically a throw back. Lots of women who have left home to work in industries that don’t pay enough to support themselves. So they turn to some sort of sex work or sex-adjacent work to get by.

This phenomenon is nothing new. It is not from 17/18 century nor has it anything to do with Industrial Revolution. Go back to prehistoric times women have always been dependent on men until the last 50-70 years. Across all civilizations. Before the concept of marriage was invented, I imagine our prehistoric ancestors had some form of sugar relationship. The male would “provide” food/shelter/resources for his mate/sugarbaby and she would offer sex companionship and perhaps even some domestic service in return. The more “stronger” “powerful” “resourceful” or “wealthier” males would be able to get access to the most desirable females. Nothing new here.

At some point in humanity the concept of marriage was formed (in almost every civilization in all corners of the world).

In a way the sugar baby sugar daddy dynamic is just a new and fancy name for something that had existed since beginning of time.

Historians, represent!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do married women feel more threatened by the growth of the sugar baby phenomenon? I mean they represent a substitute and alternative to marital sex, and it reduces the marital monopoly on sex.

Threatened, no. Interested but grossed out, yes. It helps to know what men are up to. I've had several close friends blindsided by cheating husbands. Not cool to get someone else's wife pregnant when you're a married man. The sleazy selfishness really has no limits when it comes to the "we weren't having enough sex" crowd.

BTW, "marital monopoly on sex" is a very gross and transactional way of describing a practice that has both emotional and health benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do married women feel more threatened by the growth of the sugar baby phenomenon? I mean they represent a substitute and alternative to marital sex, and it reduces the marital monopoly on sex.

I’m very late joining this thread but the sugar daddy thing is just a new name for an old phenomenon. It was probably most prevalent in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when industrialization meant many young women were moving away from their families but were largely taking jobs that did not provide an income in which you could actually live. There’s good historical research indicating that dating for subsidence was a really important part of the female economy, and it ran the gamut between women who were having extramarital sex and living in apartments paid for by a guy to those who were basically trading make out sessions and some petting for a decent hot meal (make sure he buys you dinner first!). This is why the old female boarding houses were so obsessed with keeping men out — it was a short walk to turning into a bordello! And men used to give gifts that were things like a new dress or shoes — because these girls weren’t making enough to buy themselves friggin shoes!
PP taking about the art/theTer communities in LA and NY-/that’s basically a throw back. Lots of women who have left home to work in industries that don’t pay enough to support themselves. So they turn to some sort of sex work or sex-adjacent work to get by.

This phenomenon is nothing new. It is not from 17/18 century nor has it anything to do with Industrial Revolution. Go back to prehistoric times women have always been dependent on men until the last 50-70 years. Across all civilizations. Before the concept of marriage was invented, I imagine our prehistoric ancestors had some form of sugar relationship. The male would “provide” food/shelter/resources for his mate/sugarbaby and she would offer sex companionship and perhaps even some domestic service in return. The more “stronger” “powerful” “resourceful” or “wealthier” males would be able to get access to the most desirable females. Nothing new here.

At some point in humanity the concept of marriage was formed (in almost every civilization in all corners of the world).

In a way the sugar baby sugar daddy dynamic is just a new and fancy name for something that had existed since beginning of time.

Historians, represent!!!

Agree with PP. but urbanization and industrialization accelerates these phenomena because it takes girls out of their family of origin. But for a great example read the lyrics for Diamonds Are A Girls Best friend — that’s basically a sugar situation. And of course breakfast at Tiffany’s had a male sugar baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do married women feel more threatened by the growth of the sugar baby phenomenon? I mean they represent a substitute and alternative to marital sex, and it reduces the marital monopoly on sex.

Threatened, no. Interested but grossed out, yes. It helps to know what men are up to. I've had several close friends blindsided by cheating husbands. Not cool to get someone else's wife pregnant when you're a married man. The sleazy selfishness really has no limits when it comes to the "we weren't having enough sex" crowd.

BTW, "marital monopoly on sex" is a very gross and transactional way of describing a practice that has both emotional and health benefits.

I think “marital monopoly on sex” is an apt description.

There is a reason why most cultures evolved to adopt the monogamous marriage model.

Of course those who want to destroy it are the limited few elite males who are the beneficiaries of non-monogamy.

[Anonymous]

Sex is one of the great pleasures in life. If you are being denied it, you need to do what you need to do.

And no, divorce is not always a viable option.

quote=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do married women feel more threatened by the growth of the sugar baby phenomenon? I mean they represent a substitute and alternative to marital sex, and it reduces the marital monopoly on sex.

Threatened, no. Interested but grossed out, yes. It helps to know what men are up to. I've had several close friends blindsided by cheating husbands. Not cool to get someone else's wife pregnant when you're a married man. The sleazy selfishness really has no limits when it comes to the "we weren't having enough sex" crowd.

BTW, "marital monopoly on sex" is a very gross and transactional way of describing a practice that has both emotional and health benefits.

[Anonymous]

When I was single I would peruse seeking but never had the balls to make a paid account, I recognized several young women from Hinge on there. I believe they were looking for normal relationships on Hinge but used Seeking as kind of a side hustle. My gf also has an early 20’s friend who sees sugar daddies. There are a lot of completely normal women these days doing sex work on the side.

[Anonymous]

It can be great money—several thousand a month, for not much time. And many of the married guys on there are normal, good looking guys just in a bad situation at home.

A friend is on there, good looking and wealthy. His wife had an affair and he needs revenge for closure. And he has no interest in potentially getting divorced until the kids are out of the house.
This man has two hot, young and educated women he sleeps with…this helps him.

Anonymous wrote:When I was single I would peruse seeking but never had the balls to make a paid account, I recognized several young women from Hinge on there. I believe they were looking for normal relationships on Hinge but used Seeking as kind of a side hustle. My gf also has an early 20’s friend who sees sugar daddies. There are a lot of completely normal women these days doing sex work on the side.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like a fair deal for both parties. And the wife is getting what she deserves.

Anonymous wrote:It can be great money—several thousand a month, for not much time. And many of the married guys on there are normal, good looking guys just in a bad situation at home.

A friend is on there, good looking and wealthy. His wife had an affair and he needs revenge for closure. And he has no interest in potentially getting divorced until the kids are out of the house.
This man has two hot, young and educated women he sleeps with…this helps him.

Anonymous wrote:When I was single I would peruse seeking but never had the balls to make a paid account, I recognized several young women from Hinge on there. I believe they were looking for normal relationships on Hinge but used Seeking as kind of a side hustle. My gf also has an early 20’s friend who sees sugar daddies. There are a lot of completely normal women these days doing sex work on the side.

[Anonymous]

The question is, is the Sugar Baby thing much more common now than in the past 30 years?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do married women feel more threatened by the growth of the sugar baby phenomenon? I mean they represent a substitute and alternative to marital sex, and it reduces the marital monopoly on sex.

I’m very late joining this thread but the sugar daddy thing is just a new name for an old phenomenon. It was probably most prevalent in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when industrialization meant many young women were moving away from their families but were largely taking jobs that did not provide an income in which you could actually live. There’s good historical research indicating that dating for subsidence was a really important part of the female economy, and it ran the gamut between women who were having extramarital sex and living in apartments paid for by a guy to those who were basically trading make out sessions and some petting for a decent hot meal (make sure he buys you dinner first!). This is why the old female boarding houses were so obsessed with keeping men out — it was a short walk to turning into a bordello! And men used to give gifts that were things like a new dress or shoes — because these girls weren’t making enough to buy themselves friggin shoes!
PP taking about the art/theTer communities in LA and NY-/that’s basically a throw back. Lots of women who have left home to work in industries that don’t pay enough to support themselves. So they turn to some sort of sex work or sex-adjacent work to get by.

This phenomenon is nothing new. It is not from 17/18 century nor has it anything to do with Industrial Revolution. Go back to prehistoric times women have always been dependent on men until the last 50-70 years. Across all civilizations. Before the concept of marriage was invented, I imagine our prehistoric ancestors had some form of sugar relationship. The male would “provide” food/shelter/resources for his mate/sugarbaby and she would offer sex companionship and perhaps even some domestic service in return. The more “stronger” “powerful” “resourceful” or “wealthier” males would be able to get access to the most desirable females. Nothing new here.

At some point in humanity the concept of marriage was formed (in almost every civilization in all corners of the world).

In a way the sugar baby sugar daddy dynamic is just a new and fancy name for something that had existed since beginning of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The question is, is the Sugar Baby thing much more common now than in the past 30 years?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do married women feel more threatened by the growth of the sugar baby phenomenon? I mean they represent a substitute and alternative to marital sex, and it reduces the marital monopoly on sex.

I’m very late joining this thread but the sugar daddy thing is just a new name for an old phenomenon. It was probably most prevalent in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when industrialization meant many young women were moving away from their families but were largely taking jobs that did not provide an income in which you could actually live. There’s good historical research indicating that dating for subsidence was a really important part of the female economy, and it ran the gamut between women who were having extramarital sex and living in apartments paid for by a guy to those who were basically trading make out sessions and some petting for a decent hot meal (make sure he buys you dinner first!). This is why the old female boarding houses were so obsessed with keeping men out — it was a short walk to turning into a bordello! And men used to give gifts that were things like a new dress or shoes — because these girls weren’t making enough to buy themselves friggin shoes!
PP taking about the art/theTer communities in LA and NY-/that’s basically a throw back. Lots of women who have left home to work in industries that don’t pay enough to support themselves. So they turn to some sort of sex work or sex-adjacent work to get by.

This phenomenon is nothing new. It is not from 17/18 century nor has it anything to do with Industrial Revolution. Go back to prehistoric times women have always been dependent on men until the last 50-70 years. Across all civilizations. Before the concept of marriage was invented, I imagine our prehistoric ancestors had some form of sugar relationship. The male would “provide” food/shelter/resources for his mate/sugarbaby and she would offer sex companionship and perhaps even some domestic service in return. The more “stronger” “powerful” “resourceful” or “wealthier” males would be able to get access to the most desirable females. Nothing new here.

At some point in humanity the concept of marriage was formed (in almost every civilization in all corners of the world).

In a way the sugar baby sugar daddy dynamic is just a new and fancy name for something that had existed since beginning of time.

It’s significantly more organized thanks to OLD. It’s almost as easy as ordering something from Amazon these days.

Young beautiful women see it as a side hustle. Nothing wrong with it at all.

[Anonymous]

When I was in college in the late 70's, I knew a beautiful young woman (friend of a friend) whose mom was apparently grooming her to be what they called back then "a mistress' in DC. I really hated her mom.

[Anonymous]

Where do you find them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The question is, is the Sugar Baby thing much more common now than in the past 30 years?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do married women feel more threatened by the growth of the sugar baby phenomenon? I mean they represent a substitute and alternative to marital sex, and it reduces the marital monopoly on sex.

I’m very late joining this thread but the sugar daddy thing is just a new name for an old phenomenon. It was probably most prevalent in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when industrialization meant many young women were moving away from their families but were largely taking jobs that did not provide an income in which you could actually live. There’s good historical research indicating that dating for subsidence was a really important part of the female economy, and it ran the gamut between women who were having extramarital sex and living in apartments paid for by a guy to those who were basically trading make out sessions and some petting for a decent hot meal (make sure he buys you dinner first!). This is why the old female boarding houses were so obsessed with keeping men out — it was a short walk to turning into a bordello! And men used to give gifts that were things like a new dress or shoes — because these girls weren’t making enough to buy themselves friggin shoes!
PP taking about the art/theTer communities in LA and NY-/that’s basically a throw back. Lots of women who have left home to work in industries that don’t pay enough to support themselves. So they turn to some sort of sex work or sex-adjacent work to get by.

This phenomenon is nothing new. It is not from 17/18 century nor has it anything to do with Industrial Revolution. Go back to prehistoric times women have always been dependent on men until the last 50-70 years. Across all civilizations. Before the concept of marriage was invented, I imagine our prehistoric ancestors had some form of sugar relationship. The male would “provide” food/shelter/resources for his mate/sugarbaby and she would offer sex companionship and perhaps even some domestic service in return. The more “stronger” “powerful” “resourceful” or “wealthier” males would be able to get access to the most desirable females. Nothing new here.

At some point in humanity the concept of marriage was formed (in almost every civilization in all corners of the world).

In a way the sugar baby sugar daddy dynamic is just a new and fancy name for something that had existed since beginning of time.

It’s significantly more organized thanks to OLD. It’s almost as easy as ordering something from Amazon these days.

Young beautiful women see it as a side hustle. Nothing wrong with it at all.