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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Do her a favor and break up with her now. She doesn't need this kind of judgment from you.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:How is this any different than the various sad, scorned SAHM's that want to leave but "need the financial support"?