Opinions: Are "Sugar Babies" Just a Bunch of Hookers?
Was watching Lisa Ling's episode about Seeking Arrangements on CNN the other day. It was actually hard to make it through to the end just because of the amount of denials on both sides.
Sugar Daddies insisting that the "arrangements" were more about them generously mentoring young women and providing he with financial support to help them with her goals than wanting sex. Ok, first of all I think most of them are completely in denial about that one. Some must know they are full of shit others are off in fantasy land/hyperspace. For the few who really aren't interested in sex, okays that's even weirder than just paying a hooker for sex, where's it's clear what your goal is.
On the Sugar Baby side the denial is equally amusing. There was a clip of Dr Phil asking a group of them "Are y'all just a bunch of hookers?" They were absolutely shocked by this question. Like how could anybody think that? Lots of rationalizations about why they are not. All in all, though let's just ignore the little fact that they are having sex for money. I guess if you just pretend there isn't that fact the question is not as clear...
All softball question from Lisa Ling. It would have been nice if she asked one of these "non hookers" what would happen in their "relationships" if they stopped providing sex. Would they except the money flow to them to continue?
Here on TUSCL these days, it looks like it's about 50/50 split between those who are in denial about what is going on when they pay strippers for sex, which is they are hookers and you are a John - and those who rationalize it as something else.
If that Lisa Ling show is a representative sample the denial level there looks close to 100%. (Not that I have any reason to trust her and CNN not to have an agenda on that one. If she can portray thing sympathetically I guess there is more money to be made then just a show about guys who pay hookers for sex.)
So what do folks here think? Was the answer to Dr Phil's question an affirmative? Are "sugar babies" just a bunch of hookers using a euphemism?
Sugar Daddies insisting that the "arrangements" were more about them generously mentoring young women and providing he with financial support to help them with her goals than wanting sex. Ok, first of all I think most of them are completely in denial about that one. Some must know they are full of shit others are off in fantasy land/hyperspace. For the few who really aren't interested in sex, okays that's even weirder than just paying a hooker for sex, where's it's clear what your goal is.
On the Sugar Baby side the denial is equally amusing. There was a clip of Dr Phil asking a group of them "Are y'all just a bunch of hookers?" They were absolutely shocked by this question. Like how could anybody think that? Lots of rationalizations about why they are not. All in all, though let's just ignore the little fact that they are having sex for money. I guess if you just pretend there isn't that fact the question is not as clear...
All softball question from Lisa Ling. It would have been nice if she asked one of these "non hookers" what would happen in their "relationships" if they stopped providing sex. Would they except the money flow to them to continue?
Here on TUSCL these days, it looks like it's about 50/50 split between those who are in denial about what is going on when they pay strippers for sex, which is they are hookers and you are a John - and those who rationalize it as something else.
If that Lisa Ling show is a representative sample the denial level there looks close to 100%. (Not that I have any reason to trust her and CNN not to have an agenda on that one. If she can portray thing sympathetically I guess there is more money to be made then just a show about guys who pay hookers for sex.)
So what do folks here think? Was the answer to Dr Phil's question an affirmative? Are "sugar babies" just a bunch of hookers using a euphemism?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
36 comments
As for the claim that their is no sex involved, either 1) it's a complete lie for TV, or 2) the guys are complete morons. I suspect some of both.
If it's just BS for legal cover, and you're not really expected to believe the Seeking Arrangement company line I guess it could be cool, but there does seem to be evidence there is a very weird class of "men" (see how I put that in quotes) out there that find going out to dinner and being seen with her and the pretend like just as important as the sex.
Are there girls on that site who just acknowledge they are hookers and you don't have do all the stupid pretend relationship with? Because if they are that could be cool.
Technically, I guess all that provide sex for "sugar" are hookers although generally not high mileage ones. My experience is the sugar is about what one would pay for an escort but generally there isn't a clock on the time. I've done overnights for $200 several times. It's a good alternative to strippers but one does need to be careful with his identity as there are some psycho bitches out there.
for those who didn't see this episode. Gonna watch it after school.
Ok, I'm with you there. If SB exist who are getting paid for no-sex, they aren't hookers. Got to think that's pretty rare though. Am I wrong???
Bear in mind that I do *not* consider any of those women to be *im*moral, just morally equivalent. It's her body, and with whom she chooses to have sex and why is between her and that person, or people, and nobody else. Nor is it subject to anyone else's judgement.
Yes, I'm aware that the law and the majority of the American population disagree with me. They're wrong.
My main take away is that strip clubs are the way to go for any paid sex relationship. Some of these idiots are paying thousands and just getting teased. Insane. Strippers are so much easier than all this bullshit.
Strippers can give fake affection but you actually get what you pay for and know a good stripper can make that experience very fun for a fixed price with lots of options and a variety of people. Hookers also have more honor as you know you are going to get sex out of it once you pay, no "buy my this and maybe....." crap cause the hooker would be out of business fast trying to pull that garbage.
I also laugh at the "mentoring" BS that some "sugar daddies" claim cause that shit is so false and full of lies it's not funny, heck they are so delusional they are making up such a laughable farce.
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=2…
Not sure about that one. I'm inclined to agree, but the motivation of men who will dish out money just to be *seen* with a young hooker and not actually fuck her is a complete mystery to me. Sure people are looking at them. But I don't think it's positive attention like "wow! I wish I could have a girl like that when I'm an old fuck." I think people are wise to the fact that hookers, escorts, prostitutes whatever you want to call them exist in this world. And if you see an old fuck with a young girl clinging to him, that's probably why. I guess some old fucks are able to kind themselves though.
But stevie-girl says they are "civies".
Consider instead of Sugar Babies, the more European type of the Mistresses. Europe, Latin America, and Asia all use this other system.
I don't think they are hookers.
I mean really, as Comrade Engels has explored in depth, since we destroyed the old matrilineal system, what we have instead is this Marriage-Prostitution system. It is a continuum, where the main variable is social status.
While I certainly do not want to go back to the matrilineal system, I don't go along with this present system either.
Thoughts?
SJG
ROLLING STONES LITTLE T & A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg2ZtSHo…