Why do people glorify the parasitic lifestyle?

Post Reply New Topic

Subjugation isn't the same thing as objectification, and neither one of them is the same thing as commodification. You are stretching the boundaries of the subject to fit in your own point, which is irrelevant to my point and irrelevant to the point to which I was responding (which was about womyn getting husbands to take care of them financially). I hope you don't imagine that you are describing my bias. If you want to see true bias, try tracking all the times someone chimes in with "that happens to men to!" (even if it doesn't) whenever someone mentions some negative aspect of womyn's lives (hint, hint).

I'm about done with WP. You are not living in reality if you think womyn's problems of any type generally get more attention or are viewed as worse in relation to men's.

I'm not trying to bust your chops, but here in the USA, men have pretty much NO RIGHTS when the issue of divorce, alimony and child support/custody are concerned.

Heck, if you get a DNA test and PROVE it's not your kid AFTER you've self-identified as the father (trusting the lies of the mother that it's your kid) the courts DO NOT let the man off the hook...even though he can prove he's not the biological father. You're in "baby jail" until the kid (who isn't yours) hits 18 in most states. Men are now being encouraged to get paternity tests EVEN IF THEY ARE MARRIED TO THE MOTHER because in divorces it's coming out in many cases that the mother had an affair and lied about the parentage when the kid was born.

Law is supposed to be equal, but there is no equity whatsoever where men are involved in family courts.

Neither gender has it "better" as a universal truth. Each has it's own benefits and drawbacks. Which is "better" is more about which slate of options you'd prefer to have.

To address two things you said. You spelled it womyn. I don't know what you think that will get you but no. It's like the fluffy bunny wiccans spelling magick. No, no, no. Spelling is spelling. Don't f**k with it.

Since you are thinking of going, I'd like to quote Jan and Dean to you. Go baby go baby go baby GO.

We glorify any kind of easy money in this culture, so it's no surprise to me that people celebrate this kind of thing. Personally, I don't. The appeal is obvious, but I would be ashamed of myself if I lived that way. And the "sugar daddy/sugar mama" thing...isn't that just a slightly more sophisticated form of prostitution? I don't even get why other people enjoy sex that much. There's a lot more to life, you know?

Fine. You're derailing the thread anyway. No one is really interested in having yet another meaningless online debate about gender.

I think there is a point that's missing in this conversation. For most people embracing this sort of lifestyle it serves as a way out of some situation where they feel they have no escape, no opportunities to advance and make a meaningful life for themselves.

I think the majority of people who fall into this lifestyle feel like its the best they can do (and honestly if the partner in the relationship is a multimillionaire it probably is the best they'll ever be able to do). That said, those who go into these relationships generally realize they can not last forever so either seek security through marriage to the person, children (and hence child support), or using the other's capital to build their own safety net such as a personal business or real estate and honestly I don't see the major problem with it.

For the most part these people are providing a service, some take extreme advantage and milk people who can't really afford it, but in general they offer the illusion of love and caring. The problem exist when the parties lie to each other and themselves about the real nature of their relationship and truly believe love exist.

...but my take has to be taken with a grain of salt as I myself am aromantic so my viewpoint is slightly warped.

When a con artist takes someone's resources in exchange for an illusion, then we know it's morally wrong, but for some reason it's harder to see this as being wrong in more personal relationships.
It's whoring.

I've never been more then a lurker on the forum, but I guess I can pop my head out and add a few cents.


I live in NYC and have seen this situation many times and it doesn't seem that anyone here has an accurate picture of "sugar daddy" situation.

There are some single guys that use websites like Seeking Arrangements like a soft prostitution catalog, but the vast majority are looking for one person only. The idea of security though being a sugar baby is pointless as pretty much all of them are married and have zero interest in getting divorced. They don't want someone they think they'd like to marry, live with, raise a family with-ect. They already have that. What they want is a part of their life that is completely private to them dressed in the soft and pleasant shades of a sex, romance, and youth as opposed to their often stressful and boring job life. This could involve actual sex but 90% of the time also involves spending a lot of time talking, going on dates, shared hobbies, ect. Every girl I know who's had a sugar daddy relates to them on some level as a authority/father figure they can confide in their problems and ask for life advice and the opposite "paternal" feeling is there from the SD. I guess it's a weird combination of deep friendship/father-daughter dynamic/sex. It's not really like two people with an financial arrangement and nothing else. I guess it can be ( and probably is sometimes) but that's not what I've observed.

I ask myself that question every time I walk to 7-Eleven at 6:30 in the morning.

Ironically a lot of those sugar daddy types are the same people who hate disabled people on welfare who want to work but can't.

What?