Looks like you need a sugar momma, then…
Both parties adult and in agreement = no harm, no foul.
Tell me about it. :mad:
I would say such a relationship is dangerous, because it is entirely possible - even likely - that one or another of the parties will, whatever they say going into such a relationship, develop actual feelings for the other as the relationship extended over time - leading to all sorts of completely predictable problems if those feelings are not reciprocated. How could a person “attend to someone’s emotional needs” without any actual emotional attachment eventually developing?
It is somewhat icky because it mimics an actual relationship (complete with emotional attachment), but it isn’t - or at least, it isn’t supposed to be. It is like paying someone to pretend to be your friend. It is sorta sad, and I would think less of someone who seriously did that, or who accepted money for that.
To the extent that one party or the other develops an attachment, it is a failure (see paragraph above), unless of course both do simultaneously - in which case, it ceases to be a “sugar daddy” relation.
Not, I venture to say, that such relations should be illegal.
The recipient of a gift doesn’t pay any tax or do any reporting under most conditions. It’s the giver of the gift who has the requirements to report the payments and pay tax (if any).
As for whether it is a gift or not: as long as there’s an expectation that X will be provided as a condition of receiving Y, then it’s not a gift. Obviously, this line is blurry in all kinds of relationships, but if you’re responding to personal ads that say “I’ll be your girlfriend for $5000/month” then it’s not a gift.
In my view, as others said, it’s tantamount to prostitution, it’s just a long term transaction that may have some of the payment in other forms besides just cash. And, as far as I’m aware, even from a more traditional prostitute, many men may be less interested in sex than some cuddling, conversation, or emotional support. From a legal perspective, I think prostitution should be legal, because it’s a business transaction between two consenting adults.
From a moral perspective, I couldn’t ever engage in it, and I would probably be disappointed in anyone that I loved being involved in one from either side. I guess to a certain extent, it could be refreshing that a wealthy person and an attractive person in a relationship as we see so often but most presume isn’t authentic are at least honest with each other that it’s not. But, ultimately, I’d be concerned for someone I cared about that they would be satisfied by something like that, either in paying someone to fulfill all the duties of a romantic relationship without genuine affection, or someone who is willing to pretend to fill that hole for someone else for money and gifts.
Worse, as others indicated, it seems like it could be treacherous ground emotionally. If one is expecting companionship and emotional support, it seems like it would be difficult or impossible not to get attached. Similarly, even if in situations where I’m providing emotional support for others without any expected reciprocation, I have genuine emotional responses. I can’t imagine there won’t be some sort of imbalance created as a result, likely in one developing feelings, positively or negatively, that impact how those needs are fulfilled. Then again, I have met people who are much more emotionally arid than am I, or whose concerns are so overwhelmingly elsewhere, that maybe the appearance of such is generally enough. Maybe there are certain types out there where those concerns are minimal compared to how they would be if I were in the same situation.
So, sure, let people do it, but I’d definitely caution against it to anyone I knew who was considering entering such a relationship.
You would caution a rich friend to not get into a paid arrangement with a hot woman who provides anything he might need whenever he needs it without the hang ups associated with a real relationship?
I wish I was rich enough to do that.
I have a hot woman who provides what I need when I need it without having to buy her presence (or presents). Granted, we have the hang-ups of a real relationship but that’s a feature, not a bug 
Exactly. Suppose you are rich enough, but can’t get any this particular Friday night. You can
- Keep getting rejected
- Pay someone to go on a date with you
Ok, so you get some dates. You don’t ask for sex and it’s never discussed. You go on paid dates with a few different women.
Some of these women are kind of trashy hoes. You bang em once and don’t go on further dates. Some of these women can’t hide that they don’t find you attractive and they believe they are too good for you. You stop dating them as well. Some of them are just right or really good at faking it. You keep dating them. They just happen to have sex with you pretty regularly or do something equally nice.
Is it prostitution? Are you paying for sex? Well, you probably are, I’m just saying it’s kind of a grey area. There’s no menu, you aren’t paying for an hour that includes a set of services the hooker will perform. Things just happen “naturally”.
I am happy for you. Do you acknowledge the reality that there are men out there who are both (1) rich enough to afford something like this (2) not found attractive by most women. These guys just “be themselves” and go down in flames every time they hit on a women. Why? Maybe they are fat. Ugly. Short. Timid. A real asshole. All of the above.
Should these men just go home alone every night wishing they could find someone? Or should they stop wasting their time and get what they want, even if they have to pay for it. You tell me.
If you ask me, one danger of that for the sugar babe is that she is very likely to eventually age out of that status. It’s not like this is something you can use on your resume when you want to move on up.
Though this is something of an occupational hazard for sex workers generally.
I knew a guy who lived this way. This was about 25 years ago in Las Vegas. He was 40-something and looking for women in their 30s, not college kids. He didn’t buy them an apartment; she lived in his house.
But otherwise it was all business like these sugar daddy/baby arrangements and his expectation was to swap them out every couple of years.
It worked for him. I met some of them and it worked for them too. When he was done with any one of them he’d send them off with a nice going-away present, a new car or something.
His attitude was that between business and male friends he had all the ordinary human interaction and intellectual stimulation he wanted. As far as he was concerned, most women were good for sex and that’s about it. So that’s the part he bought and paid for without buying the rest of the standard wife/GF package.
Said another way, he had problems connecting with women who weren’t bimbos, so bimbo-hood was all he could recognize in most women. And I have to say that as between having a bimbo for a GF / wife or for a pure sexbot I think most men would prefer the latter. I think I would.
To be sure, having a real woman with a real personality for a real relationship is better yet. But when you can’t get a real woman with a real personality, you settle for what you can get. Or at least some men apparently did/do.
Who says she doesn’t have a day job?
While I don’t see anything wrong with doing what you wrote, let me ask you this:
You go out on a date with your girlfriend every Friday night and you pay for her movie, snacks, and later on, dinner. Then she goes home with you and has sex with you. In the morning she leaves cause she has work every other day, and this is the only night she can be with you.
Are you paying for sex?
I’m not sure where you get the idea that the rich guys who are sugar daddies are not found attractive by most women? I’m sure that being rich is attractive enough to somebody, but they have the money to get the best parts of a relationship without having to deal with the bad parts, I doubt that looks come into play.
Very possble that she does. I have a feeling that this lifestyle does not encourage people to really exert themselves at getting ahead at their day jobs, though. (Conversely, it’s probably most attractive to people who are not doing to well at their day jobs to begin with.)
If she can be disciplined about not losing sight of the temporary nature of that type of work, that’s not an issue. I just said it was a danger.
On the surface, I have no problem with this type of relationship as long as everyone is a consenting adult and has equal power in the relationship (or if it’s a s/D relationship there are appropriate checks in place to prevent abuse).
I don’t find it particularly repugnant, either - not something I’d be able to do emotionally, but I could see some people finding it an acceptable arrangement.
Yep. Not my cup of tea, but I could care less if others do it.
My only real objection is from a workers-rights perspective.
For the kept-person, I would be concerned about them missing out opportunities to build a real, sustainable career that has growth potential. This is a dead end job that doesn’t offer things like training, a job history, a promotion ladder, etc. And while dinners and nice clothes are nice, cash compensation is pretty much always more helpful in building financial stability.
I’d also worry that as, essentially, illegal contractors they lack the rights that formal employees have. And this goes double if the kept-person becomes 100% dependent. They have fewer resources for protection against hazardous, abusive or exploitative working conditions.
I guess I would want to see this profession formalized. I don’t get to set up a “relationship between consenting adults” with my live-in nanny. I have to follow employment laws.
That’s what I was thinking–I’m sure this form of relationship is more gratifying for both parties than maybe half the more traditional marriages out there. Maybe it’s an even better arrangement that could end up replacing marriage?
In any event, not my circus & not my monkeys–as long as people are happy and nobody’s playing games, what is there to be offended about?