DE Sugar

[Shampoo55]

I think if you are on a site explicitly meant to connect men and women for PPM or an allowance predicated on sex it's prostitution. You can put lipstick on that pig all day long, but it's sex work. Appropriating the words "sugar daddy / baby" is just the lipstick. Now there's plenty of guys who met women who's relationship is largely based on him doing for her financially. Pays some bills, takes her shopping, helping with school etc. That shit has existed for all time and is what sugar daddy / baby used to mean. Now it is being used to describe a different kind of prostitute, or more accurately a range of kinds of prostitutes. Nothing wrong with it but it's kind of silly to pretend it is anything but sex work. If you come over and watch a movie and have dinner and glass of wine with your boyfriend and there's $300 on the dresser waiting for you, you are a prostitute. Everything else is just semantics.

Don't get me wrong, this is all sex work. That said, the traditional definition as you correctly pointed out (in bold above) IS the definition of Sugar Baby. Sugar Daddy. You can bastardize it all you want, by just doing PPM for hook-up meets, but that doesn't make a dude a SD, nor the girl a SB.

Point is that some are looking for the traditional definition of a Sugar Baby, but with so many Johns in the pool, most girls are just escorts. Putting a label on them doesn't make it so. Site is being misused.

So say you were looking for a traditional Sugar Baby, and not just some Escort with the SB label, how youse gunna find it since everyone thinks that just getting paid to fuck is being a SB?

Seems like the fine point I'm trying to make is lost and is the true definition.

[JTerry26]

All of what you described, except for the last part is Escort lite. You are just using 'code words' to soften up sex work. Soft words don't make it something else.

This is the problem with the bowl these days, that definition you provided seems to have stamped out the traditional definition in many minds. It just pablum to make everyone feel less icky about escorting and being a John.

Under this "new" definition there is no distinction or merit between a "sugar baby" and an escort. They are both providing the same service and there is no relationship beyond P2 P. The fact that you assume true SBs have multiple SDs just shows that these are escorts.

A true Sugar Baby has all or most of her needs met from her Sugar Daddy and doesn't need "multiple SDs" in order to stay afloat. Escorts on the other had do need multiple clients to make ends meet.

The very definition of a Sugar Daddy IS a gent who is wealthy and takes care of his baby. Pays her rent, gives her extra gifts for nails, buys her a new laptop / phone when the old one fails or breaks, etc. Anyone who is just seeing a girl for hotel dates and not really taking care of a girl is not a Sugar Daddy, he's a John paying an escort, no matter what "label" anyone want to put on it to make themself feel better. Oh, I'm not a John, I'm a Sugar Daddy! RIGHT!

But I get your perspective. Girls find it is more socially acceptable to label themselves as a sugar baby than admit to their family and friends they are just a plain old sex-worker fucking guys for money! Any SB that has multiple SD is definitely a pro! Any dude just paying a girl for sex is indeed a John.

Now let me blow your mind- payments to a girl that are for 'services rendered' are fully taxable as income to the provider. But gifts given to a Sugar Baby are gifts and not taxable to the recipient. The US Tax Court has weighed in on this and determined the nature of the relationship is key as to whether payments are for services (taxable) or gifts (nontaxable, to a limit). So just seeing a girl for sex for money is a taxable event for her and she's a sex worker. Having a true relationship with a girl and enhancing her life (the traditional definition of Sugar dating).

So go ahead and keep pontificating on your "perception" of what is a Sugar Daddy, when in fact it is just using code words to mask the client-sex worker dynamic.

I think if you are on a site explicitly meant to connect men and women for PPM or an allowance predicated on sex it's prostitution. You can put lipstick on that pig all day long, but it's sex work. Appropriating the words "sugar daddy / baby" is just the lipstick. Now there's plenty of guys who met women who's relationship is largely based on him doing for her financially. Pays some bills, takes her shopping, helping with school etc. That shit has existed for all time and is what sugar daddy / baby used to mean. Now it is being used to describe a different kind of prostitute, or more accurately a range of kinds of prostitutes. Nothing wrong with it but it's kind of silly to pretend it is anything but sex work. If you come over and watch a movie and have dinner and glass of wine with your boyfriend and there's $300 on the dresser waiting for you, you are a prostitute. Everything else is just semantics.

[Shampoo55]

The primary thing a sugar daddy needs to provide is regular financial support to his sugar. Anything beyond that is up to what the daddy or sugar wants out of such an arrangement. Guys that are married or in a relationship will not want to go out in public with their sugar. At the end of the day it's still an arrangement where one is providing something in exchange for what is given.

The method of payment, be it PPM or monthly allowance, is all the same in the end since they're both transactional. One is just paying in advance while the other is pay as you go. Even with an established sugar, it's likely she'll be less available / flexible to meet when given a monthly allowance. After all, she's not meeting with her daddy out of the kindness of her heart so would prefer to meet the least possible if given an allowance. Keep in mind, most sugars have multiple daddies. If one daddy is providing an allowance and the other is a regular PPM she will prioritize her time / schedule to meet the PPM daddy since it means more money for her.

The majority of daddies are not wealthy so have a budget they live within. But one doesn't need to be wealthy to sugar. Since it's not how wealthy one is that matters for most sugars. Rather it's how much they're able (or willing) to provide. Some might only be able to have a sugar for a few months out of the year, which is how long most sugar arrangements last. While others can afford a sugar year round, perhaps even multiple sugars at the same time. Then there are wealthy daddies that can provide their sugar with a place to live, vehicle, college tuition, and ten thousand or more every month.

All of what you described, except for the last part is Escort lite. You are just using 'code words' to soften up sex work. Soft words don't make it something else.

This is the problem with the bowl these days, that definition you provided seems to have stamped out the traditional definition in many minds. It just pablum to make everyone feel less icky about escorting and being a John.

Under this "new" definition there is no distinction or merit between a "sugar baby" and an escort. They are both providing the same service and there is no relationship beyond P2 P. The fact that you assume true SBs have multiple SDs just shows that these are escorts.

A true Sugar Baby has all or most of her needs met from her Sugar Daddy and doesn't need "multiple SDs" in order to stay afloat. Escorts on the other had do need multiple clients to make ends meet.

The very definition of a Sugar Daddy IS a gent who is wealthy and takes care of his baby. Pays her rent, gives her extra gifts for nails, buys her a new laptop / phone when the old one fails or breaks, etc. Anyone who is just seeing a girl for hotel dates and not really taking care of a girl is not a Sugar Daddy, he's a John paying an escort, no matter what "label" anyone want to put on it to make themself feel better. Oh, I'm not a John, I'm a Sugar Daddy! RIGHT!

But I get your perspective. Girls find it is more socially acceptable to label themselves as a sugar baby than admit to their family and friends they are just a plain old sex-worker fucking guys for money! Any SB that has multiple SD is definitely a pro! Any dude just paying a girl for sex is indeed a John.

Now let me blow your mind- payments to a girl that are for 'services rendered' are fully taxable as income to the provider. But gifts given to a Sugar Baby are gifts and not taxable to the recipient. The US Tax Court has weighed in on this and determined the nature of the relationship is key as to whether payments are for services (taxable) or gifts (nontaxable, to a limit). So just seeing a girl for sex for money is a taxable event for her and she's a sex worker. Having a true relationship with a girl and enhancing her life (the traditional definition of Sugar dating).

So go ahead and keep pontificating on your "perception" of what is a Sugar Daddy, when in fact it is just using code words to mask the client-sex worker dynamic.

[Frasier69]

Yes, rinsing is an issue, as are scammers who want money upfront. So yes, unless one wants to get rinsed by providing a virtual stranger with a month's worth of sugar, the PPM is the way to go. PPM until there is trust established and then it can go to monthly allowance. So it might take a couple of months or three to build that trust, or it might take 15-20 meetings. But most rinsers aren't going to invest that kind of time. Plus, by then one gets a pretty good indication of the nature and extent of the relationship. And the key part being it is a relationship, not just a business transaction.

But where we disagree is the term "daddies". A true SD has a provider mentality and not only pays a PPM, but also takes his baby out and does other things: shows, movies, sporting events, dinners, etc. Also a true SD is willing to step in when his baby has a crisis. Like a $1 K car repair. He may also provide clothes for a new job or periodic mani-pedi. And those who do have a budget are just playing at being a Sugar Daddy because all of these extras would be outside what is possible.

Oh I get it. It's hard to find decent escorts to take the edge off. But when one finds a girl for weekly meets and just gives a PPM, does not make him a SD. It's just escort lite or UTR dating an escort. I know it is more fashionable to call a regular a Sugar Daddy and it goes over well with the girl's friends, rather than admitting they are just an escort taking cash for sex. I mean, come on! I've had girls living on the streets tell me they have a SD! If so, then WTF are they doing living on the streets?

But missing a provider mentality and the ability to go above and beyond simple PPM to enhance a girl's life, one is engaged in mongering and not the Sugar Bowl. I'm jousting at windmills with the definition that seems to perhaps be in transition. Problem is that bastardization of the term makes it much harder to find the true Sugar Relationship!

Just saying.

The primary thing a sugar daddy needs to provide is regular financial support to his sugar. Anything beyond that is up to what the daddy or sugar wants out of such an arrangement. Guys that are married or in a relationship will not want to go out in public with their sugar. At the end of the day it's still an arrangement where one is providing something in exchange for what is given.

The method of payment, be it PPM or monthly allowance, is all the same in the end since they're both transactional. One is just paying in advance while the other is pay as you go. Even with an established sugar, it's likely she'll be less available / flexible to meet when given a monthly allowance. After all, she's not meeting with her daddy out of the kindness of her heart so would prefer to meet the least possible if given an allowance. Keep in mind, most sugars have multiple daddies. If one daddy is providing an allowance and the other is a regular PPM she will prioritize her time / schedule to meet the PPM daddy since it means more money for her.

The majority of daddies are not wealthy so have a budget they live within. But one doesn't need to be wealthy to sugar. Since it's not how wealthy one is that matters for most sugars. Rather it's how much they're able (or willing) to provide. Some might only be able to have a sugar for a few months out of the year, which is how long most sugar arrangements last. While others can afford a sugar year round, perhaps even multiple sugars at the same time. Then there are wealthy daddies that can provide their sugar with a place to live, vehicle, college tuition, and ten thousand or more every month.

[Shampoo55]

Most sugar arrangements start off PPM. Rising is more of a problem nowadays so providing monthly allowances is on the decline. Most of the daddys looking for sugar on seeking aren't wealthy so are living within a budget of some sort. Perhaps that's why most sugar arrangements last just a few months.

Yes, rinsing is an issue, as are scammers who want money upfront. So yes, unless one wants to get rinsed by providing a virtual stranger with a month's worth of sugar, the PPM is the way to go. PPM until there is trust established and then it can go to monthly allowance. So it might take a couple of months or three to build that trust, or it might take 15-20 meetings. But most rinsers aren't going to invest that kind of time. Plus, by then one gets a pretty good indication of the nature and extent of the relationship. And the key part being it is a relationship, not just a business transaction.

But where we disagree is the term "daddies". A true SD has a provider mentality and not only pays a PPM, but also takes his baby out and does other things: shows, movies, sporting events, dinners, etc. Also a true SD is willing to step in when his baby has a crisis. Like a $1 K car repair. He may also provide clothes for a new job or periodic mani-pedi. And those who do have a budget are just playing at being a Sugar Daddy because all of these extras would be outside what is possible.

Oh I get it. It's hard to find decent escorts to take the edge off. But when one finds a girl for weekly meets and just gives a PPM, does not make him a SD. It's just escort lite or UTR dating an escort. I know it is more fashionable to call a regular a Sugar Daddy and it goes over well with the girl's friends, rather than admitting they are just an escort taking cash for sex. I mean, come on! I've had girls living on the streets tell me they have a SD! If so, then WTF are they doing living on the streets?

But missing a provider mentality and the ability to go above and beyond simple PPM to enhance a girl's life, one is engaged in mongering and not the Sugar Bowl. I'm jousting at windmills with the definition that seems to perhaps be in transition. Problem is that bastardization of the term makes it much harder to find the true Sugar Relationship!

Just saying.

[Frasier69]

OK so these pics sure look familiar and unfortunately I'm not making the connection. Anyone know this woman? Got a report?

https://members.seeking.com/member/b...1-7884e087eac5

I think she use to escort in the past, pre-pandemic.

[Frasier69]

Guys that "have a budget" and need to be concerned with the cost of a room, probably are only playing in the Bowl and not full fledged SDs.

Hey, I get it. I was there at one point. But chalked up dinners out, events, hotel rooms and vanilla type dates as just a cost of doing business. Once I did, I found Sugaring to be much more fun and productive! But hey, to each his own. No shade.

The value these arrangements provide are limited for me. When the amount is beyond a certain point there are other things I value more to spend that money on. More so when I have other options available to fill my needs, like UTRs. If someone is fine throwing down 2-3 k every month (3-4 meets) on a college age sugar then more power to them. Personally, I would get bored rather quickly since they're half my age so there wouldn't be much of a connection outside the bedroom. I find women in their late 20's to be the best since they're more mature and experienced while still being relatively young.

Most sugar arrangements start off PPM. Rising is more of a problem nowadays so providing monthly allowances is on the decline. Most of the daddys looking for sugar on seeking aren't wealthy so are living within a budget of some sort. Perhaps that's why most sugar arrangements last just a few months.

[Shampoo55]

OK so these pics sure look familiar and unfortunately I'm not making the connection. Anyone know this woman? Got a report?

https://members.seeking.com/member/b...1-7884e087eac5

[Shampoo55]

Most are looking for 5-6 per meet off the bat so they need to be talked down a lot. The good looking college gals know they can find men that will pay up. They much rather see someone 1-4 x a month vs. Going lower and seeing more guys to make up the difference. Also, from my experience the service is usually better with UTRs vs. Younger college sugars.

I agree, 3-4 for a non-pro cute or good looking college sugar isn't unreasonable. But they typically can't host so that adds to the cost. That's why I think seeking is best used nowadays to hookup with various college aged gals that one only sees a few times and moves on to the next.

I guess we're looking for different things from the Sugar Bowl? But I certainly see the influence of what you stated as burned in the minds of most of the women. They are use to guys using them once or a few times for PPM, which isn't a Sugar Relationship, just escort-lite. Or they think being a Sugar Baby means hooking up periodically hooking up with a guy and getting paid. Zero concept of how to work a relationship and entice the provider mentality to be generous above and beyond some paltry PPM payment. It's a TicTok influencer mentality promulgated by guys who just want to get laid and not really interested in providing for or enhancing a girls' life. Guys that "have a budget" and need to be concerned with the cost of a room, probably are only playing in the Bowl and not full fledged SDs.

Hey, I get it. I was there at one point. But chalked up dinners out, events, hotel rooms and vanilla type dates as just a cost of doing business. Once I did, I found Sugaring to be much more fun and productive! But hey, to each his own. No shade.

[Frasier69]

What do you consider GPS? I think I am finding 3-4 for a non-pro, often college girl is a reasonable fare, especially if one isn't serial dating. I think girls appreciate steady income.

Most are looking for 5-6 per meet off the bat so they need to be talked down a lot. The good looking college gals know they can find men that will pay up. They much rather see someone 1-4 x a month vs. Going lower and seeing more guys to make up the difference. Also, from my experience the service is usually better with UTRs vs. Younger college sugars.

I agree, 3-4 for a non-pro cute or good looking college sugar isn't unreasonable. But they typically can't host so that adds to the cost. That's why I think seeking is best used nowadays to hookup with various college aged gals that one only sees a few times and moves on to the next.

[Shampoo55]

I gave up on Seeking because of the GPS by most of the women on there nowadays. Also, around this area the selection is limited and quality not all that great. I mainly focus on hunting UTRs in the wild now. It takes a lot of work so isn't worth it unless one wants regulars, which is my preference. It's a bit more like paid FWBs since the UTRs I find are more personable than what I would find on CL back in the day.

I much rather see UTRs 8 x a month for the same price or less vs. Seeing a sugar on seeking 3-4 x a month that I had to talk down from their GPS cliff. Seeking is probably best used nowadays to hookup with various college age gals that you only see a few times, though at a higher price. Most of my UTRs are single mom's that are 25-36 years old.

What do you consider GPS? I think I am finding 3-4 for a non-pro, often college girl is a reasonable fare, especially if one isn't serial dating. I think girls appreciate steady income.

[Frasier69]

https://members.seeking.com/member/1...d-79cc0038fb56

Went on a date with this one got intimate at her place. Gave requested allowance (4). Decided not to see her or talk to her any more. Come to find out she took a pic of me and posted on the "are we dating the same guy website" found my wife, brother, and basically texted them all the details. Probably stay away from this one. She seems mentally unstable.

I found this one while UTR hunting, didn't know she used to be on Seeking. She wanted more of a relationship but was open to something more casual. She demanded that I give her my full name which I refused. I didn't bother to proceed further after that.

[Frasier69]

What's up with this thread? Has everyone abandoned the Sugar Bowl? I have stuff I can share, but no point if it's just feeding the lurkers.

I gave up on Seeking because of the GPS by most of the women on there nowadays. Also, around this area the selection is limited and quality not all that great. I mainly focus on hunting UTRs in the wild now. It takes a lot of work so isn't worth it unless one wants regulars, which is my preference. It's a bit more like paid FWBs since the UTRs I find are more personable than what I would find on CL back in the day.

I much rather see UTRs 8 x a month for the same price or less vs. Seeing a sugar on seeking 3-4 x a month that I had to talk down from their GPS cliff. Seeking is probably best used nowadays to hookup with various college age gals that you only see a few times, though at a higher price. Most of my UTRs are single mom's that are 25-36 years old.

[Shampoo55]

What's up with this thread? Has everyone abandoned the Sugar Bowl? I have stuff I can share, but no point if it's just feeding the lurkers.

[Shampoo55]

So a buddy hits me up to look up a profile for him. Sure enough the profile is still there! Here's the story.

He sent a note to a girl and her first response was something like- how much allowance for intimacy? He said he feared getting banned if he responded in any way, so he reported the profile.

Now I know if I had typed that, my profile would be banned instantly. But apparently her profile is still up and hasn't been banned!

So what gives with that? This is odd because the "new" Seeking has so many prohibitions in place to stamp out prostitution, etc and keep the website on the right side of FOSTA / SESTA. So strange that they'd let something like this slide?

So to my thinking two possibilities:

1. She was a paid member and SA didn't want to ban her because of that?

2. The profile was somehow SA related and "fishing" for those inclined to violating the TOS?

So hope it isn't the later as that would get plenty of people banned. Just be aware, take any convo off site before discussing funds / money.