New girlfriend use to be a sugar baby..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is this any different than the various sad, scorned SAHM's that want to leave but "need the financial support"?

Because the sugar babies are having sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this any different than the various sad, scorned SAHM's that want to leave but "need the financial support"?

Because they are married and have children together dumbass.

That doesn't change a thing. They're still having all their sh*t paid for by a paramour, in exchange for either sex (as someone pointed out, debateable) or for the social recognition of accompanying the other person. It's still USING the other person for money.

You're f*cked in the head if that's how you see a sahm.

+ 1 someone forgot to take their medicine.

You forgot the part about a SAHM that stays in a marriage for the money not for the love. And I'm a female and I don't see a difference either.

[Anonymous]

I feel for you Buddy. DW had a FWB when I met her. They broke up but it bothered me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this any different than the various sad, scorned SAHM's that want to leave but "need the financial support"?

Because the sugar babies are having sex.

More to the point, the sugar daddies are having sex, whereas the poor frustrated husbands of the SAHMs are beating off in the bathroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this any different than the various sad, scorned SAHM's that want to leave but "need the financial support"?

Because they are married and have children together dumbass.

That doesn't change a thing. They're still having all their sh*t paid for by a paramour, in exchange for either sex (as someone pointed out, debateable) or for the social recognition of accompanying the other person. It's still USING the other person for money.

You're f*cked in the head if that's how you see a sahm.

+ 1 someone forgot to take their medicine.

You forgot the part about a SAHM that stays in a marriage for the money not for the love. And I'm a female and I don't see a difference either.

I don't either, it's CLEARLY just for money.
Get your own money.

[Anonymous]

She lacks self-esteem or she wouldn't have accepted the sugar baby-sugar daddy relationship. She wouldn't be with you if you didn't make very good money. You are the shortcut to the lifestyle she wants to achieve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this any different than the various sad, scorned SAHM's that want to leave but "need the financial support"?

Because they are married and have children together dumbass.

That doesn't change a thing. They're still having all their sh*t paid for by a paramour, in exchange for either sex (as someone pointed out, debateable) or for the social recognition of accompanying the other person. It's still USING the other person for money.

You're f*cked in the head if that's how you see a sahm.

+ 1 someone forgot to take their medicine.

You forgot the part about a SAHM that stays in a marriage for the money not for the love. And I'm a female and I don't see a difference either.

Being female doesn't make you any smarter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it a formal sugar daddy relationship, like someone she sought out for that on a website, or just a generous older guy that she dated who wanted to pay for stuff for her?

Op here. She described it as a fwb type relationship. She was 27 and he was 35. I am not jealous, btw. I make very good money.

I think you may be seeing the relationship in a way that isn't quite accurate. Sugar baby usually implies a 22 year old with a 50-something, not FWB nearly the same age.

Op here. This is not true. A SD/SB relationship doesn't have to have a significant age difference. This wasn't an fwb ( I've had 2 in the past). She got together with him 2-3 times a weeks, and in exchange he took care of parts of her tuition and gave her gifts.

That's just a plain old prostitute. Call a spade a spade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this any different than the various sad, scorned SAHM's that want to leave but "need the financial support"?

Because they are married and have children together dumbass.

That doesn't change a thing. They're still having all their sh*t paid for by a paramour, in exchange for either sex (as someone pointed out, debateable) or for the social recognition of accompanying the other person. It's still USING the other person for money.

You're f*cked in the head if that's how you see a sahm.

+ 1 someone forgot to take their medicine.

You forgot the part about a SAHM that stays in a marriage for the money not for the love. And I'm a female and I don't see a difference either.

Being female doesn't make you any smarter.

In any case, exchanging sex for money is still prostitution. Clearly you are one and are trying to justify why your kind of prostituon is okay but another woman's version is not.

[Anonymous]

All women are prostitutes unless they are too ugly to pull it off. Get over it people, it's really not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do her a favor and break up with her now. She doesn't need this kind of judgment from you.

Yes, you can have some respect and not settle for trash.

[Anonymous]

As I have grown older and more experienced, I unfortunately have learned that women are no more noble than teenage boys. The boys are just more honest and forthright. We all want something and manipulate to get it. A sugarbaby is on the extreme side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As I have grown older and more experienced, I unfortunately have learned that women are no more noble than teenage boys. The boys are just more honest and forthright. We all want something and manipulate to get it. A sugarbaby is on the extreme side.

Why?

Women can be much more manipulative than having a sugar daddy.

How about the 30 something year old women who "accidentally" get pregnant by much younger men in their early 20's who happen to come from very well off family?
And somehow they get married. Even the not attractive ones.

Some call it fate. I call it total manipulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As I have grown older and more experienced, I unfortunately have learned that women are no more noble than teenage boys. The boys are just more honest and forthright. We all want something and manipulate to get it. A sugarbaby is on the extreme side.

Being a sugar baby is the opposite of manipulative. It is transactional. All in the open. Either let the true nature of people air out (opportunistic) or push it underground and watch manipulative behaviors start to crop up ("But little larlo needs me at home! I can't go back to work!"). Pick your poison.

[Anonymous]

You get what you pay for.