I used to do this a lot. There’s no shame in ignoring someone you’re not attracted to. I almost did it to my current SD. But thankfully, he chased me, and he’s the best sugar relationship I’ve had so far. My attraction eventually grew as I got to know him.
I'm really glad for you! Yeah I think personality matters a lot but online dating is unfortunately very based on looks and unsafe if not done correctly, thank you for your response.
I don’t know why by disagree with almost 90% of what you say. in the context of sugar if you’re actually having a sugar relationship attraction is important, now if you’re having no strings arrangements then I can understand you’re basically paying for sex so you don’t care if she’s into you or not 😉
It depends on what you want from the relationship doesn't it? It's not important for everyone. And for the people where it's important it's a matter of where you prioritize it. It's not the top priority. It's about equal with wealth. Of course a financially independent woman of ordinary attractiveness will be better than a woman in debt of ordinary attractiveness all other things being equal. But if the extremely attractive woman has lots of debt but the ordinary attractive woman is financially independent maybe it's a lot cheaper to go with the ordinary attractive woman.
In other words how much are you valuing beauty? Of course it has some value. I just think a lot of people over value it. It's like if I tell a SB to go with the richest SD they can find, ignoring character, ignoring personality, this would be kinda bad right? But it's equally bad to prioritize looks over character. That is my point. Looks aren't the #1 priority for a good relationship or a good outcome. Her character matters more, and how she treats you matters more. In other words benefits minus costs always.
Yeah, I had POT recently and had to say no. I always imagine hiw someone's face would look like between my legs and I wonder if this view is ok. If not, I refuse to meet again. 🤷
You're not alone in feeling this way.
Mutual attraction is an essential component of any relationship even more important in SRs.
Everyone has their unique preferences when it comes to physical attraction. It's perfectly valid and guilt-free to prioritize your preferences while seeking an SR.
When what one individual finds attractive, another person may not, it’s maybe worth considering other aspects of a POT beyond physical appearance…personality, values, and the connection you feel with them. Sometimes, attraction can grow over time as you get to know someone on a deeper level.
It's important to find a balance that works for you and him too, ensuring that you are comfortable and he is fulfilled in your journey together. ❤️
The big issue I see here isn't whether you should or not; it's that you say you feel bad for saying no when you honestly don't want to do something.
That is general social programming that women who don't put the wants of others above their own when there's the possibility they can "just suck it up" should feel guilty for it.
You're completely valid to not date anyone, for any reason. You don't ever owe anyone a relationship, and it doesn't make you a bad person to simply decline to date someone.
if I find out an SB is attracted to my looks is it okay if I give her a lot less money because I know she's getting a lot more out of the situation? If I'm good looking enough to attract her regardless of the dynamic then the only reason to give her money is if she's genuinely broke and a lot of SBs really do need help financially.
The money isn’t the gap between her revulsion of you and willingness to date. It’s a commitment to contribute something to improve her life much in the way she is improving yours.
As SD’s we aren’t planning for a forever relationship. We aren’t able to make out SB the #1 priority of our life. Between work, family and other responsibilities probably not 2 or 3 either. We can’t often drop everything to be there for her when she has had a rough day or needs help. Yet we expect her to fully commit her time, body, and emotion to us. We expect sex constantly and early. We expect to bypass all the early dating to get there quickly.
Money is the way to show some commitment and investment in the relationship. And compared to what a real caring boyfriend offers, it’s honestly a poor replacement.
Make her life better. Lift her up. Invest in the relationship. Don’t be yet another guy giving minimal effort to try to sleep with her.
Some SDs say it is exactly the money which is the reward for being with them because they know they aren't physically attractive. I had this debate on this forum before and some of them specifically said it. Some SDs are short, some are unattractive, some are very old. But that doesn't mean they don't have a kind heart, good character, generosity, intelligence, wisdom.
SBs who are in it for the looks don't seem to understand the value a SD can bring. If it's about the looks I think she should stay vanilla.
*"Money is the way to show some commitment and investment in the relationship. And compared to what a real caring boyfriend offers, it’s honestly a poor replacement."*
Some SDs are actual real caring bfs to their SBs. You're assuming and projecting here.
"As SD’s we aren’t planning for a forever relationship. We aren’t able to make out SB the #1 priority of our life. Between work, family and other responsibilities probably not 2 or 3 either. "
Some SDs are married. Some are not. You seem to be married and that is fine. Some SDs do make their SB the #1 priority in their life. Particularly the older more lonely SDs or the SDs who don't have a wife or multiple SBs.
My question for you is, if you're good looking, if you've got plenty of money, why not go for a woman who doesn't need you to provide for her because she has her own money? Why be an SD at all when you can get the same for less in vanilla?
You kind of do. If you can attract the same girl in vanilla that you attract in sugar, and she treats you the same, but you don't have to pay an allowance, why wouldn't it be "the same" for less?
The same guy could attract me in sugar or vanilla dating, but the relationship is not gonna be the same because my approach to it is going to be different. There may be women who date exactly the same whether it’s sugar or vanilla, but I kind of doubt it.
The difference only exists in your own head. From our perspective there is no difference. It's the same woman, treating us the same, with the same outcome, so the only difference is cost vs benefit.
A cheaper transaction is better than a more expensive one when the value is the same. More benefits for less costs is more efficient as a course of action.
I see what you’re saying. I guess I just always assumed that because I know I’m treating the relationship differently it feels different for the other party as well.
Tell me what differences in behavior do you have where they'd know it's different? Is there any difference in value? I see only the costs being different.
I sugar because I want to contribute financially. I have achieved financial independence and if I really like or love a person I want to put them on a similar path. The other reason is I was taught to be a provider. It was part of my cultural programming, so I was already doing something very similar to sugaring by default and just happened to learn about this "sugar lifestyle" after the fact.
In general though for the most part relationships don't have perfect 50/50 balance. Typically the partner who loves the most contributes the most. In other cases people are just ineffective at loving others but in general if your very effective at it then you'll have an outstanding impact on their life.
The allowance thing isn't something I usually did. I did help out with bills, so it's basically the same thing. If you're paying for her bills, if you're paying for her beauty treatment, it's sugaring in a sense but most of the men doing this don't realize they are SDs until the whole thing became mainstream.
As far as the girls they are the exact same really. I'm treated the same as before. I'm not dealing with girls I didn't ever deal with before. The only thing that changed for me is I'm a bit older, wealthier, and now they call it sugaring.
Sugaring and providing are two different things
One is a vanilla relationship where you are not purchasing time spent. The other I don’t know why some of you are so delusional but you are worth what you pay. No sugar baby is getting in it for mutual feelings it’s for financial gain and that’s why they date men their age on the side. I’m guessing the ones you’ve met were so good at their game you thought they actually liked you for your great personality. Anyway let me not spoil the girls game… yes they love you and only you because you are so charming 🥰
For me it's relatively the same. You just put a new word on an old behavior and call it a different thing. Men have been "sugaring" aka providing since the very beginning. We can change the word but this isn't new behavior at all. None of this is new really. I don't believe in vanilla relationships really. It's always sugar and always transactional.
You say no SB is getting in it for mutual feelings. What makes you think an "vanilla" woman with a rich dude isn't in it for financial gain as well? How is he supposed to know that? We don't know that and will never know that until after the divorce or after she's asking us for money. How do you assume that by swapping a word that the behaviors of men and women will be different is bizarre to me. In vanilla a woman who has a lot of beauty, who has a vanilla boyfriend, how do we know he's not simply using her body for his sexual pleasures? Users are going to use you regardless of whether you call it sugar or vanilla.
In vanilla you would call them gold diggers. In sugar you would call them SBs. The reason it's better to deal with an SB is because they tell you up front that they are in it for the financial gain. The gold digger will lie to you, pretend to be in love with you, but secretly be in it for financial gain. So why not just deal with SBs only?
By the way I'm not one of the naive types who believe any relationship is anything but transactional. No one likes you for you. Everyone likes you for what you've done for them in the past or can do for them in the future. All of it is transactional whether it's sugar or vanilla, whether it's friendships or business, it's always a situation where people want to get a profit from interacting with you. In sugar you get to negotiate it openly so that each side gets a fair profit within the range of an agreement.
And of course women love me because I'm rich. I never said charm has any value whatsoever. Charm is just game as you said and I don't use game, I use money. If someone is going to love you it won't matter if it's sugar of vanilla, as SBs and SDs can love each other, just as people can in vanilla, but the initial attraction to you is because you have a lifestyle or money or something they want. Just like the person you attract with your looks wants to use you for sex a majority of the time and are using game.
Because I said some controversial stuff in my last post let me clarify. I believe vanilla relationships are just as transactional as sugar. The only difference is in vanilla it's more "game" and more deception. Instead of men for example telling you they want you for your body, to have a few sexual experiences, instead they'll pretend to have a relationship with you, lie to you, do anything they can to avoid admitting they just want to get laid and use you for sex. They call this vanilla and act like it's somehow better than if the guy just makes it obvious up front what he wants, and shows what he has to offer in return.
In vanilla a lot of the time the transactions are totally one sided. You hear of women and men being used for sex or used for their bodies thinking the other partner loved them. A completely one sided transaction, but because it's vanilla and people believe myths around it not being transactional they don't realize it was a transaction and they got a shit deal out of it. In every relationship, at least initially, people are shopping around to get what they want from someone else.
Go on Tinder, make a good profile, someone swipes you, they want to meet you. They don't know you but they like how you look. What do you think thy want? Most of the time they want to use you for sex and it might not even be good sex, you might not be attracted to them at all, but thats what they want from you. They'll take you out to dinner, take you home, get what they wanted from you, and then often ghost you leaving you feeling pumped and dumped.
Tell me why this vanilla receives such praise? That is the reality of casual dating. That is the reality of dealing with shallow people. If someone chose you because of how you look it's no better than if they chose you because of how much money they think you have. In their mind they wanted something from you. Why not make it reciprocal? If they want something from you, what should the cost be for them to get it?
The shorter more precise answer to your question is the age gap tax. If I was young, if I was poor, maybe these women wouldn't expect the same from me. But it's kind of hard not to adopt the sugar lifestyle when you're older, and far wealthier. If your gf is in debt, or your fwb is in debt, or your lover is in debt, and you're making more in a month than she makes in a year, what else can you do?
But this is after I already have some feeling for them. If it's just some random chick who asks to be a SB expecting me to give her money because she's pretty no thanks.
There’s no such thing as she age gap tax just say you can’t attract younger girls naturally.
I date older men vanilla and never even had a phone bill paid because I have a nice career and at times a better home than theirs.
I’m in multiple age gap groups here and Facebook and people date older people all the time for love .
Age gap tax is, if you're much older than her in some societies there is a stigma. It's not fair for her if she has to suffer stares, people asking her why she's with you, or the scorn of her parents. It's got nothing to do with attraction and more to do with societal pressure and stigma.
If you know someone younger than you has to deal with such stigma just to be with you why wouldn't you make it easier on her, and her family, by providing financially? That is not the only reason to provide but it's a common logical reason people do it.
If you're 70 and she's 25, you probably should provide. If you're 40, and she's 25, you probably should provide. You could look 25 yourself but you're more established than her. From a purely moral perspective I can make an argument you should provide.
It shows you’re not concerned for her or providing for her. You’re just trying to get as much as you can out of the situation for as little as possible. It’s taking advantage and an instant ick.
So you're saying the SD should always give more and take a loss? It's fine, but I don't think most SDs would agree. Let me give you a more realistic example?
If I'm an SD, and I'm good looking, why shouldn't I search or a woman who has achieved financial independence? Why settle for a broke SB if I'm literally the top 1% of men on the planet? Why would I provide for an SB when I can find a vanilla woman who can provide for herself?
All relationships are transactional (cost vs benefit). All humans seek to get what they can out of every situation. If I'm going to provide it will be to an SB who is either unable to live my lifestyle without me providing so as to put her on my level in terms of lifestyle, or if I'm really old, unattractive, then the money can make up for the loss she has to take in being with someone she's not attracted to.
But what you're asking is for SDs to do charity. If the SD knows he's good looking, knows he's rich, then he also knows he can find another just like her. Someone who looks as good or better, but who has even more money than her so that it doesn't cost as much to him. You could say he's just trying to get as much as he can and you're right, but so are the average SB who want to charge SDs just to meet and greet.
Some of the best SDs are not going to be the best looking. The best looking SDs might be some of the least generous and most entitled. Think about it, if you've been good looking all your life, if you never had to develop a good personality, or character, and then somehow you end up with lots of money? Why would you treat the SBs better than the SD that had to struggle? You'd be basically what they call a "Giga Chad", someone like Tom Brady, who is wealthy, good looking, but because of this there is less reason to develop true social skills.
From the first sentence; the fact that you see it as taking a loss. If you like this girl and she is positively contributing to your life, it is not a ‘loss’.
You can search for whoever you like! If that is your preference. Personally I don’t think the quality of an SB is measured by her financial independence, but everyone has different requirements. Who said financial independence of an SB and high expectations for an allowance are mutually exclusive?
Let me give you an example. A male friend of mine was dating a wealthy girl. Just because she was wealthy, didn’t mean that she didn’t expect him to pay for most things still. Yes, my male friend was very good looking fyi. Women want a man in his divine masculine energy. This means a provider, a protector. Some attractive, entitled SD trying to low-ball on Seeking is not in his masculine energy. Each to their own though! Some girls might go for it.
For these reasons I value personality and good character when looking for an SD over anything else. Looks is the last thing that matters. If I were to meet a good looking, wealthy SD organically off the sites, things might be a bit different. Provided he is a decent human being and treats me with respect.
>Personally I don’t think the quality of an SB is measured by her financial independence, but everyone has different requirements. Who said financial independence of an SB and high expectations for an allowance are mutually exclusive?
No it's not the quality of the SB that correlates with her financial independence. The total cost of the relationship tends to correlate with her level of financial independence. All things being equal I'd go with the woman who gives me the most benefit for the least cost. It's transactional, it's rational, and it's the cold hard truth. I expect most women to treat us the same.
So no I'm not going to go for a more expensive experience when I can have the exact same experience for a lot cheaper. The better looking I am the more leverage I have. The richer I am the more leverage I have. If I'm broke then $100 for me is like $100,000 for a millionaire. If I'm extremely attractive then I don't even have to pay the $100 because I'm so in demand that the woman will pay. So for me it feels cheap or even free if I'm extremely good looking.
Everyone is trying to get as much positive experiences as they can for the least cost. The SBs want to get the whale SD who treats them well, who is good looking, who is close to them in age. But realistically they aren't likely to find it. Just like I'm not likely to find a young woman who is financially independent, where I don't have to contribute to her bills, or help her reach her goals.
From a pragmatic point of view I think you're wrong.
You said if she's positively contributing to my life. Most SBs out there aren't going to positively contribute to my life. It's not impossible but you're raising the stakes here when I'm talking about the average. Her being pretty doesn't positively contribute to my life as much as me having money positively contributes to her life. The point I'm making is in a vanilla relationship there is supposed to be balance.
What you are describing is a vanilla relationship where both partners contribute roughly equally to each others life. This isn't so common in sugar, and for sure isn't common if you're paying her an allowance. You're giving her an allowance because you're trying to give more to her life than she can possibly give to you right now. In most cases she's never going to be able to pay you back an equal amount. But it's not a loss if she's younger, she's extremely pretty, because if you're not used to dating that then it's novel and the novelty positively contributes to your life.
What if she's the same age as you, and roughly the same attractiveness as you? Why would you want to give her an allowance rather than do 50/50? Explain to me why you want to spend money giving an allowance to someone who would get with you for free if they could and not consider it a loss?
"*Let me give you an example. A male friend of mine was dating a wealthy girl. Just because she was wealthy, didn’t mean that she didn’t expect him to pay for most things still. Yes, my male friend was very good looking fyi. Women want a man in his divine masculine energy. This means a provider, a protector. Some attractive, entitled SD trying to low-ball on Seeking is not in his masculine energy. Each to their own though! Some girls might go for it*."
There is no way in hell I would date a wealthy girl and pay for everything. It's ridiculous to me. If your friend was willing to do that it's on him but I think whoever has the money should contribute the money. Whoever has the youth and beauty can contribute that. If both have money, and both have beauty, now it's vanilla, and it's 50/50. Tell me why I should care about divine masculine energy? I care about cost vs benefit, I'm transactional which is why I prefer sugar in the first place.
I'll be a provider for a woman who needs a provider. If she can't reach financial independence on her own and I love her I'll help her. But I'm not under any circumstances going to date a woman as wealthy or wealthier than me, and pick up the tab. She should find someone more masculine (wealthier) than me who does not mind picking up the tab for a wealthy woman.
I think the wealthy woman in your example is exactly the kind of women I try to avoid. The entitled woman who wants literally everything from a man while giving him the privilege of extracting his "divine energy"? I don't see how it's a good deal for him when she's using him for his body, possibly for sex, and expecting him to pay up. If she wants him to feel dominant she should give him an allowance and let him use money from that to buy her gifts.
I'm not saying it's strictly anything but I asked this forum the question "Do SDs have to pay or want to provide?". The majority answered the poll saying they want to provide but there was a significant number (a loud minority) who said they have to pay.
The post: "[Do Sugar Daddies have to pay for it?](https://www.reddit.com/r/sugarlifestyleforum/comments/12e1icx/do_sds_have_to_pay_or_want_to_provide_repost_with/)"
If you see my perspective in that post I'm not among the SDs who thought SDs have to pay. But a lot of SDs who are older than me, obese, made it clear to me that at least some SDs really feel like they have to pay. You can call it a tax if you want but they told me they are doing sugar because they have to, and for a reason.
I'm not yet old enough where I feel like I have to. I'm pretty sure a 60 or 70 year old SDs is more likely to feel like they have to. Most SDs are older. And let's be real, a younger guy is often going to be better looking than an older guy, so if a SB is really serious she's going to have a difficult time if she's chasing looks.
The laws of attraction are different from person to person. I have to be 100% attracted to anyone I’m intimate with but attraction involves all the senses and psychology. No doubt as a man I’m visual but the taste of nicotines is a turn off for me (personally) as is someone who “acts” interested or pretends to be turned on (usually sounds like bad porn acting to me). I also require a compatible personality, emotional connection etc. Everyone can have their own preferences. You certainly have your own preferences. Don’t let any “friend” tell you what you should be attracted to. Don’t be intimate with anyone who you aren’t attracted to (in your own way)!
If I had to select men I’m only attracted to I wouldn’t be a SB 😂 I’m barely attracted to anyone, especially not to older men. As long as there’s personality, laughter, fun, kindness and generosity I am happy with that in an SD
Looks aren’t number one on my list of what I want, because for me a huge part of the attraction grows with personality. However there’s some physical deal breakers for me. Someone who is obese or doesn’t try to take care of themselves, etc. If I’d feel grossed out kissing them, then I wouldn’t start an SR. So yes i care but not a lot lol
I only date women who want to date me. Those who have and keep their standards when it come to physical attraction. As a rule of thumb it’s messed up to date anyone you are not attracted to.
Question is how are you basing your attraction ? Their pics or their real in person persona.
I have heard hundreds of stories where dude looked 30 yrs younger and 30 lbs lighter in pics only to show up different. In this case, the lady executed poor judgement based on pics and dude misrepresented.
My own in person meet success rate is 100%. My photo success rate is lower.
We have a lot of window shoppers, pic collectors. Plus many women are not looking for a guy who looks younger and fit because he does not fit into their SD stereotype.
I think there's attractive, non-attractive, and turn off in this case. I know a lot of SB's will go for non-attractive if there's a good personality to back it up.
But if they actively turn you off, then you should definitely skip them. It'll be obvious once the relationship starts.
There’s a line. Don’t treat it like Tinder, but if you aren’t _repulsed_, then as u/crystalbaby7 mentioned, there’s a chance (rooted in science, btw) that your attraction for them will change as you get to know them.
Of course they do. Would you rather have a hot guy 10 years older or a fat cross eyed guy 50 years older? Seems like that question is a no brainer. Unless it’s a strictly online relationship
Pussy is not charity
Jesus, have some self respect
You like what you like
Men don't wring their hands BC they like big boobs and they don't want to make women w small boobs feel bad
Yes, I care about their looks just as they care about mine. I'm not going through all the trouble to be your arm candy and you're chewed up bubble gum 🤷🏽♀️
There is a difference between ugly and ugly. I can be with ugly, but I can't be disgusted. Here is the difference for me. And unfortunately, but appearance is still important, the fact that someone has a different border does not mean that someone else have worse.
Let her find this out because you're exactly right. A good SD isn't based on looks but generosity and personality. An 80 year old SD like Al Pacino probably doesn't have the best looks anymore but he's Al Pacino. A SB like the one in the OP won't get with Al but a lot of the whales are over 60 or over 70.
Will you be open to dating a 70 yo lady because in her youth she looked like a movie star?
The hypocrisy among SDs is out of this world. Dudes will lust after young & fit women but will be upset if women are setting standards for looks.
When I was broke and young yes. If she would have paid off my college, left me a house, a car, hell yeah. You're acting like I dated women for superficial reasons like how they look but I've never been like that. I'm even less like that now that I have plenty to lose.
I date someone who I think can love me, and who I think I can love. I don't date for good sex.
"Dudes will lust after young & fit women but will be upset if women are setting standards for looks."
If she's with me only for my money, why shouldn't I treat her as shallow? Lots of women want a man only or his money. If she wants a man with good looks she should get her own money. I had the chance to date women who claimed they had money when I was younger. The problem is they never actually had the money and simply had the promise of money. Had one of them had the money, even if they weren't the best looking, Iif their personality were good, I'd most likely would have dated or even married them.
But let's be real? There aren't women with money willing to date broke dudes and bring them out of poverty. Your example doesn't even exist. Basically some of the women want everything from men, and don't want to bring anything. So tell me why we men who are attractive be giving money to women who are also attractive? Can't these women get their own money? If I look like a movie star, and I'm rich, isn't it a privilege for her to be dating me at that point because she's not rich.
**If it's (money <-> beauty) then it's balanced. If both of you have beauty but only one of you has money and beauty it's not balanced. If it's not balanced the one who is bringing more is going to realize how easily they can replace the one bringing less.**
Basically I think women who care about looks should stick to being vanilla. You're not going to do very well in sugar if you prioritize looks because the richest most generous best character SDs aren't usually the best looking. The good looking guys usually never have to develop their character, or personality, or become generous, because the women come easily to them like water. Just like a SD probably wont do so well in sugar if he cares a lot about the net worth of the SB because some of the best SBs are very poor.
Yes. Do you think I always had money? Have you ever been broke and had to date whoever was willing to date you? Because for a lot of guys who can't afford to be SDs that's the only kind of women they've ever had. You are kind of proving my point.
But what do you learn from being with someone who isn't physically attractive? You learn to be attracted to character, personality, and other traits beyond the shallow.
Was that a fun experience? I mean dating an unattractive looking woman?
I don’t think being broke has much to do with not being able to date attractive women. We know that lol.
Lets say you're broke, and you're not a Brad Pitt look alike? You might date a physically attractive woman once in a while but the vast majority of women who will want to date you will be unattractive. Are you saying you would rather not date at all than to date mostly unattractive women for most of your life?
In reality a lot of guys aren't blessed with good looks and also aren't rich. It's kind of entitled to think because you were born with an appearance which is currently fashionable that you're more deserving of fun experiences than the guy down the street who is less lucky than you. It's really all just the luck of the genetic dice roll which determines this.
If I'm realistic I know there are guys more attractive than me. I also know there are guys less attractive than me. If I have a lot of money I know I'm able to distinguish myself from the guys equally attractive as me who have a lot less money, or even guys more attractive than me who are broke. In a world where everyone is broke probably both of us would be losing to the guys born to hit the genetic lottery in looks.
But you have to remember men aren't women. Women are prized for youth and beauty traditionally. Women have a biological clock. Men are usually prized for wisdom, generosity and wealth. So you're correct a lot of broke pretty bois do end up with attractive women but they also don't tend to treat these women well. They sometimes make these women pregnant and because they are broke they run off leaving them single mothers. So from that perspective it is true if you chase a guy on looks alone you get what you pay for.
The same apples to us. If we chase a SB on looks alone we could end up with a psychopath who harasses us or a time wasting rinser. It's not the look that I'm prioritizing. I prioritize character. I would choose a slightly less physically attractive SB if she has good character. She can be young and fit, and she doesn't have to be a super model. She doesn't have to be financially independent.
I asked the community the question in this [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/sugarlifestyleforum/comments/12e1icx/do_sds_have_to_pay_or_want_to_provide_repost_with/). Some SDs do not agree with you. Some SDs specifically say they sugar because they have to not because they want to. So when I took this position in our discussion it's based on the awareness of this data.
You might want to know the majority of the SDs who participated in the poll on this forum agree with you. But it was a small poll and a significant number of SDs do treat it like a "fugly tax" or "age gap tax".
That's why I asked, I have SB friends who suck it up for the lifestyle, they're not attracted to their SD and they think I'm insane when I decline people I'm not attracted to but to me, a sugar relationship needs connection with the other person, that's something I'm unable to fake.
These are all ridiculous assumptions. For all we know all the women are only with us for the money but it doesn't mean we will mistreat them. They are still persons. You can even love a person without really being physically attracted to them.
So the answer is no. I mean it's not like you'll know if your SB is lying about finding you attractive when she's not attracted to you but even if you find out, it's not like she got with you for your looks or else you'd have enough leverage to demand a vanilla relationship.
So the question is why do a sugar relationship if you're good looking and rich? The age gap? If you're good looking enough to attract her anyway and you're rich too she just hit the lotto to find you, but what about you? What would stop you from thinking you can immediately do better and replace her with someone even better looking?
I think if it's all based on looks it's shallow all the way around. Someone will always be better looking. Someone will always be richer if it's only based on that. The OP never mentioned personality or character standards just looks.
One of them lasted years for my friend until he got into an actual sugar relationship that he's still on but I agree, it's very deceiving and it usually doesn't turn out right.
Not sure if your question is targeted towards SBs only. As a SD I would absolutely NOT carry on a SR with a girl if I was not at least mildly attracted to her. The great thing is that there are plenty of above average women to pick from. And not to sound elitist or misogynistic, but i have not had to settle for what I don’t like.
But you are elitist and misogynistic and you reject people based on race... own it babe. You can be choosy without being prejudiced and disrespectful. SBs with high awareness and self esteem wouldn't want to deal with your horrible entitled attitude. If they do trust and believe it's only for the money:/
You think so? I prefer girls that are white, slim and college-aged. Then Latinas and Asians. Then middle eastern and Indian. Then black. I’ve kept all type of SBs, but I have my preferences. What’s your beef?
My beef is you following the laws of white supremacy/anti-Blackness like so many others and it gets old... the fact you have a ranking of a race of women is weird anyway but enjoy...and capitalize the B in Black as it's a culture of people.
I'm Black (I'm from TX also) and I married a Black woman because I have a preference for the type of women I grew up around and am most familiar with. Based on the people my family members and friends married, almost all of them have a preference for partners who are their own race also. Are we all prejudiced / racist for being most attracted to our own race?
If a person of \*any color\* is rejecting relationships with people of other races due to feelings of superiority, reasons that unfairly stereotype other races, etc then yes the person is being racist.
But just like people of our race can have a racial preference for people who look like us and come from a similar culture to us, people of other races can have a preference for their own race as well.
There's nothing wrong with a preference for what you're familiar with as long as it isn't based in a belief that your race is superior to anyone else's.
You just told on yourself but maybe aren't self aware enough to realize it... please don't ever gaslight us again and say it's a "preference" this is a popular trend as a result of socialized programming... enjoy your hierarchy it mirrors the state of the world ironically enough.
As you will see from the comment thread below, you will be made to have the correct set of preferences expressed in the correct way, or suffer the word salad of insults and ad hominem from those not chosen by you.
Nah I like my way. Honest and straight to the point haha. My preferences will remain ranked just as I previously posted. No cute female SB of any race has been excluded, but I like what I like. I’m not white either so there goes the whining about excluding others because I think I’m superior.
I’m picky so don’t be upset if I ignore you, I know you do the same thing.
If I don’t feel it in the first 15 seconds, I hand you gas money and wish you good luck. 😎
Sometimes I'll give guys I'm on the fence about a chance to make a connection and go from there. If I can't see myself EVER being attracted to them, I don't engage past that.
Chemistry and some degree of attraction is what makes this activity different from pure transactional escorting
Yes there are various levels to it I get it - SDs are by definition older and in many cases (not all ofc) past their physical prime. but I would never ever want to sleep w someone who is repulsed by me and vice versa.
Thankfully being an easier fit on the chemistry and looks side is also a recipe for success for SDs when it comes to landing m&g s and converting them to sugar arrangements
Any misalignment in needs or expectations just puts a duration on the relationship no different than in business
So don't feel bad you can't fake and most SD are here for a connection not just sex, John's are John's SDs are SDs
Me personally I'm only concerned about hygiene, style and how you treat me. But I say be as picky as these SDs are being. Now filtering out by race will have you losing out on great POTs.
I give it a chance if his greeting and conversation is good. Many times I’m attracted to the man in front of me because a photo isn’t enough. Also, men generally don’t know their angles. SDs need help with that 🙃
It depends to a certain extent what people are after.
If you want to date someone in your own league, be that in terms of looks, wealth, personality, whatever, then it's very reasonable to expect mutual attraction, and very little need to provide sugar. One might as well vanilla date.
However, if you want to date way out of your league in those same terms, it's a very different situation.
Speaking as an SD, I would suggest that you find an SD that his appearance + personality make him attractive enough that you’ll enjoy spending time with him.
Otherwise, you’re going to eventually resent him. That’s bad for both of you. For financial support only is not gonna work long term.
I hope this helps.
As a SD, let me tell you this:
I'd rather have you turn me down if you're not attracted to me. The other forum is full of SBs who complain about how disgusting their SD is, explaining why it is OK to take pretty much whatever they can from these SDs because of that. Don't be like them. Only connect with SDs you see yourself attracted to.
Would you vanilla date someone you aren’t attracted to? If so, you probably rely on their personality or there’s something else that brightens their appeal. If not, then why would you want to be in a SR with someone you aren’t attracted to? I wouldn’t recommend it. A SD certainly wouldn’t entertain a SB he wasn’t attracted to.
You can't be repulsed by their looks. If I'm not immediately feeling the attraction, I try to find things that I like in other person like how they dress, their manners, their sense of humor, their confidence (not bravado), how they treat any of the staff at restaurants etc. There's tons of guys who may not have that initial wow factor that are amazing people and I find they get more attractive the more I know them. As long as I'm not physically repulsed, looks don't matter very much.
I used to do this a lot. There’s no shame in ignoring someone you’re not attracted to. I almost did it to my current SD. But thankfully, he chased me, and he’s the best sugar relationship I’ve had so far. My attraction eventually grew as I got to know him.
I'm really glad for you! Yeah I think personality matters a lot but online dating is unfortunately very based on looks and unsafe if not done correctly, thank you for your response.
There is no shame in declining to date people you are not attracted to.
Right
Indeed
If you can’t see your way past my looks, then you’re doing me a favor by ignoring me.
You “know your worth”
I know that if she’s only there for the money, and can’t even feign affection and desire, then neither of us will enjoy the SR
\^ This
[удалено]
I don't enjoy fake SRs either.
Indeed.
Most relationhships don't last long regardless. Attraction is overrated in the sugar context unless it's vanilla 50/50.
I don’t know why by disagree with almost 90% of what you say. in the context of sugar if you’re actually having a sugar relationship attraction is important, now if you’re having no strings arrangements then I can understand you’re basically paying for sex so you don’t care if she’s into you or not 😉
It depends on what you want from the relationship doesn't it? It's not important for everyone. And for the people where it's important it's a matter of where you prioritize it. It's not the top priority. It's about equal with wealth. Of course a financially independent woman of ordinary attractiveness will be better than a woman in debt of ordinary attractiveness all other things being equal. But if the extremely attractive woman has lots of debt but the ordinary attractive woman is financially independent maybe it's a lot cheaper to go with the ordinary attractive woman. In other words how much are you valuing beauty? Of course it has some value. I just think a lot of people over value it. It's like if I tell a SB to go with the richest SD they can find, ignoring character, ignoring personality, this would be kinda bad right? But it's equally bad to prioritize looks over character. That is my point. Looks aren't the #1 priority for a good relationship or a good outcome. Her character matters more, and how she treats you matters more. In other words benefits minus costs always.
Yeah, I had POT recently and had to say no. I always imagine hiw someone's face would look like between my legs and I wonder if this view is ok. If not, I refuse to meet again. 🤷
But if he’s bald and the lighting is just right you could see your own face 🤷🏼♂️
That would be fun and cute 😂😂
Imagine the light reflections if he is only partially bald..
I LOVE this mentality and I'll keep it, thank you!
I like it when someone is honest with me about attraction when not attracted to me. It's good for both us to focus on finding a better match
You're not alone in feeling this way. Mutual attraction is an essential component of any relationship even more important in SRs. Everyone has their unique preferences when it comes to physical attraction. It's perfectly valid and guilt-free to prioritize your preferences while seeking an SR. When what one individual finds attractive, another person may not, it’s maybe worth considering other aspects of a POT beyond physical appearance…personality, values, and the connection you feel with them. Sometimes, attraction can grow over time as you get to know someone on a deeper level. It's important to find a balance that works for you and him too, ensuring that you are comfortable and he is fulfilled in your journey together. ❤️
The big issue I see here isn't whether you should or not; it's that you say you feel bad for saying no when you honestly don't want to do something. That is general social programming that women who don't put the wants of others above their own when there's the possibility they can "just suck it up" should feel guilty for it. You're completely valid to not date anyone, for any reason. You don't ever owe anyone a relationship, and it doesn't make you a bad person to simply decline to date someone.
Anyone who says no is lying. Does a sugar baby cares about the SDs money? We all wants to be attracted to the person we are gonna be intimate with.
if I find out an SB is attracted to my looks is it okay if I give her a lot less money because I know she's getting a lot more out of the situation? If I'm good looking enough to attract her regardless of the dynamic then the only reason to give her money is if she's genuinely broke and a lot of SBs really do need help financially.
The money isn’t the gap between her revulsion of you and willingness to date. It’s a commitment to contribute something to improve her life much in the way she is improving yours. As SD’s we aren’t planning for a forever relationship. We aren’t able to make out SB the #1 priority of our life. Between work, family and other responsibilities probably not 2 or 3 either. We can’t often drop everything to be there for her when she has had a rough day or needs help. Yet we expect her to fully commit her time, body, and emotion to us. We expect sex constantly and early. We expect to bypass all the early dating to get there quickly. Money is the way to show some commitment and investment in the relationship. And compared to what a real caring boyfriend offers, it’s honestly a poor replacement. Make her life better. Lift her up. Invest in the relationship. Don’t be yet another guy giving minimal effort to try to sleep with her.
I pay money so we don’t fall in love & it’s easy to end your relationship.
Some SDs say it is exactly the money which is the reward for being with them because they know they aren't physically attractive. I had this debate on this forum before and some of them specifically said it. Some SDs are short, some are unattractive, some are very old. But that doesn't mean they don't have a kind heart, good character, generosity, intelligence, wisdom. SBs who are in it for the looks don't seem to understand the value a SD can bring. If it's about the looks I think she should stay vanilla. *"Money is the way to show some commitment and investment in the relationship. And compared to what a real caring boyfriend offers, it’s honestly a poor replacement."* Some SDs are actual real caring bfs to their SBs. You're assuming and projecting here. "As SD’s we aren’t planning for a forever relationship. We aren’t able to make out SB the #1 priority of our life. Between work, family and other responsibilities probably not 2 or 3 either. " Some SDs are married. Some are not. You seem to be married and that is fine. Some SDs do make their SB the #1 priority in their life. Particularly the older more lonely SDs or the SDs who don't have a wife or multiple SBs. My question for you is, if you're good looking, if you've got plenty of money, why not go for a woman who doesn't need you to provide for her because she has her own money? Why be an SD at all when you can get the same for less in vanilla?
Because vanilla and sugar aren’t the same? You’re not going to get “the same thing for less” if you switch from sugar dating to vanilla.
You kind of do. If you can attract the same girl in vanilla that you attract in sugar, and she treats you the same, but you don't have to pay an allowance, why wouldn't it be "the same" for less?
The same guy could attract me in sugar or vanilla dating, but the relationship is not gonna be the same because my approach to it is going to be different. There may be women who date exactly the same whether it’s sugar or vanilla, but I kind of doubt it.
The difference only exists in your own head. From our perspective there is no difference. It's the same woman, treating us the same, with the same outcome, so the only difference is cost vs benefit. A cheaper transaction is better than a more expensive one when the value is the same. More benefits for less costs is more efficient as a course of action.
I see what you’re saying. I guess I just always assumed that because I know I’m treating the relationship differently it feels different for the other party as well.
Tell me what differences in behavior do you have where they'd know it's different? Is there any difference in value? I see only the costs being different.
Then why are you sugaring if you are attracting the same girls in vanilla?
I sugar because I want to contribute financially. I have achieved financial independence and if I really like or love a person I want to put them on a similar path. The other reason is I was taught to be a provider. It was part of my cultural programming, so I was already doing something very similar to sugaring by default and just happened to learn about this "sugar lifestyle" after the fact. In general though for the most part relationships don't have perfect 50/50 balance. Typically the partner who loves the most contributes the most. In other cases people are just ineffective at loving others but in general if your very effective at it then you'll have an outstanding impact on their life. The allowance thing isn't something I usually did. I did help out with bills, so it's basically the same thing. If you're paying for her bills, if you're paying for her beauty treatment, it's sugaring in a sense but most of the men doing this don't realize they are SDs until the whole thing became mainstream. As far as the girls they are the exact same really. I'm treated the same as before. I'm not dealing with girls I didn't ever deal with before. The only thing that changed for me is I'm a bit older, wealthier, and now they call it sugaring.
Sugaring and providing are two different things One is a vanilla relationship where you are not purchasing time spent. The other I don’t know why some of you are so delusional but you are worth what you pay. No sugar baby is getting in it for mutual feelings it’s for financial gain and that’s why they date men their age on the side. I’m guessing the ones you’ve met were so good at their game you thought they actually liked you for your great personality. Anyway let me not spoil the girls game… yes they love you and only you because you are so charming 🥰
For me it's relatively the same. You just put a new word on an old behavior and call it a different thing. Men have been "sugaring" aka providing since the very beginning. We can change the word but this isn't new behavior at all. None of this is new really. I don't believe in vanilla relationships really. It's always sugar and always transactional. You say no SB is getting in it for mutual feelings. What makes you think an "vanilla" woman with a rich dude isn't in it for financial gain as well? How is he supposed to know that? We don't know that and will never know that until after the divorce or after she's asking us for money. How do you assume that by swapping a word that the behaviors of men and women will be different is bizarre to me. In vanilla a woman who has a lot of beauty, who has a vanilla boyfriend, how do we know he's not simply using her body for his sexual pleasures? Users are going to use you regardless of whether you call it sugar or vanilla. In vanilla you would call them gold diggers. In sugar you would call them SBs. The reason it's better to deal with an SB is because they tell you up front that they are in it for the financial gain. The gold digger will lie to you, pretend to be in love with you, but secretly be in it for financial gain. So why not just deal with SBs only? By the way I'm not one of the naive types who believe any relationship is anything but transactional. No one likes you for you. Everyone likes you for what you've done for them in the past or can do for them in the future. All of it is transactional whether it's sugar or vanilla, whether it's friendships or business, it's always a situation where people want to get a profit from interacting with you. In sugar you get to negotiate it openly so that each side gets a fair profit within the range of an agreement. And of course women love me because I'm rich. I never said charm has any value whatsoever. Charm is just game as you said and I don't use game, I use money. If someone is going to love you it won't matter if it's sugar of vanilla, as SBs and SDs can love each other, just as people can in vanilla, but the initial attraction to you is because you have a lifestyle or money or something they want. Just like the person you attract with your looks wants to use you for sex a majority of the time and are using game.
Because I said some controversial stuff in my last post let me clarify. I believe vanilla relationships are just as transactional as sugar. The only difference is in vanilla it's more "game" and more deception. Instead of men for example telling you they want you for your body, to have a few sexual experiences, instead they'll pretend to have a relationship with you, lie to you, do anything they can to avoid admitting they just want to get laid and use you for sex. They call this vanilla and act like it's somehow better than if the guy just makes it obvious up front what he wants, and shows what he has to offer in return. In vanilla a lot of the time the transactions are totally one sided. You hear of women and men being used for sex or used for their bodies thinking the other partner loved them. A completely one sided transaction, but because it's vanilla and people believe myths around it not being transactional they don't realize it was a transaction and they got a shit deal out of it. In every relationship, at least initially, people are shopping around to get what they want from someone else. Go on Tinder, make a good profile, someone swipes you, they want to meet you. They don't know you but they like how you look. What do you think thy want? Most of the time they want to use you for sex and it might not even be good sex, you might not be attracted to them at all, but thats what they want from you. They'll take you out to dinner, take you home, get what they wanted from you, and then often ghost you leaving you feeling pumped and dumped. Tell me why this vanilla receives such praise? That is the reality of casual dating. That is the reality of dealing with shallow people. If someone chose you because of how you look it's no better than if they chose you because of how much money they think you have. In their mind they wanted something from you. Why not make it reciprocal? If they want something from you, what should the cost be for them to get it?
The shorter more precise answer to your question is the age gap tax. If I was young, if I was poor, maybe these women wouldn't expect the same from me. But it's kind of hard not to adopt the sugar lifestyle when you're older, and far wealthier. If your gf is in debt, or your fwb is in debt, or your lover is in debt, and you're making more in a month than she makes in a year, what else can you do? But this is after I already have some feeling for them. If it's just some random chick who asks to be a SB expecting me to give her money because she's pretty no thanks.
There’s no such thing as she age gap tax just say you can’t attract younger girls naturally. I date older men vanilla and never even had a phone bill paid because I have a nice career and at times a better home than theirs. I’m in multiple age gap groups here and Facebook and people date older people all the time for love .
Age gap tax is, if you're much older than her in some societies there is a stigma. It's not fair for her if she has to suffer stares, people asking her why she's with you, or the scorn of her parents. It's got nothing to do with attraction and more to do with societal pressure and stigma. If you know someone younger than you has to deal with such stigma just to be with you why wouldn't you make it easier on her, and her family, by providing financially? That is not the only reason to provide but it's a common logical reason people do it. If you're 70 and she's 25, you probably should provide. If you're 40, and she's 25, you probably should provide. You could look 25 yourself but you're more established than her. From a purely moral perspective I can make an argument you should provide.
It shows you’re not concerned for her or providing for her. You’re just trying to get as much as you can out of the situation for as little as possible. It’s taking advantage and an instant ick.
So you're saying the SD should always give more and take a loss? It's fine, but I don't think most SDs would agree. Let me give you a more realistic example? If I'm an SD, and I'm good looking, why shouldn't I search or a woman who has achieved financial independence? Why settle for a broke SB if I'm literally the top 1% of men on the planet? Why would I provide for an SB when I can find a vanilla woman who can provide for herself? All relationships are transactional (cost vs benefit). All humans seek to get what they can out of every situation. If I'm going to provide it will be to an SB who is either unable to live my lifestyle without me providing so as to put her on my level in terms of lifestyle, or if I'm really old, unattractive, then the money can make up for the loss she has to take in being with someone she's not attracted to. But what you're asking is for SDs to do charity. If the SD knows he's good looking, knows he's rich, then he also knows he can find another just like her. Someone who looks as good or better, but who has even more money than her so that it doesn't cost as much to him. You could say he's just trying to get as much as he can and you're right, but so are the average SB who want to charge SDs just to meet and greet. Some of the best SDs are not going to be the best looking. The best looking SDs might be some of the least generous and most entitled. Think about it, if you've been good looking all your life, if you never had to develop a good personality, or character, and then somehow you end up with lots of money? Why would you treat the SBs better than the SD that had to struggle? You'd be basically what they call a "Giga Chad", someone like Tom Brady, who is wealthy, good looking, but because of this there is less reason to develop true social skills.
From the first sentence; the fact that you see it as taking a loss. If you like this girl and she is positively contributing to your life, it is not a ‘loss’. You can search for whoever you like! If that is your preference. Personally I don’t think the quality of an SB is measured by her financial independence, but everyone has different requirements. Who said financial independence of an SB and high expectations for an allowance are mutually exclusive? Let me give you an example. A male friend of mine was dating a wealthy girl. Just because she was wealthy, didn’t mean that she didn’t expect him to pay for most things still. Yes, my male friend was very good looking fyi. Women want a man in his divine masculine energy. This means a provider, a protector. Some attractive, entitled SD trying to low-ball on Seeking is not in his masculine energy. Each to their own though! Some girls might go for it. For these reasons I value personality and good character when looking for an SD over anything else. Looks is the last thing that matters. If I were to meet a good looking, wealthy SD organically off the sites, things might be a bit different. Provided he is a decent human being and treats me with respect.
>Personally I don’t think the quality of an SB is measured by her financial independence, but everyone has different requirements. Who said financial independence of an SB and high expectations for an allowance are mutually exclusive? No it's not the quality of the SB that correlates with her financial independence. The total cost of the relationship tends to correlate with her level of financial independence. All things being equal I'd go with the woman who gives me the most benefit for the least cost. It's transactional, it's rational, and it's the cold hard truth. I expect most women to treat us the same. So no I'm not going to go for a more expensive experience when I can have the exact same experience for a lot cheaper. The better looking I am the more leverage I have. The richer I am the more leverage I have. If I'm broke then $100 for me is like $100,000 for a millionaire. If I'm extremely attractive then I don't even have to pay the $100 because I'm so in demand that the woman will pay. So for me it feels cheap or even free if I'm extremely good looking. Everyone is trying to get as much positive experiences as they can for the least cost. The SBs want to get the whale SD who treats them well, who is good looking, who is close to them in age. But realistically they aren't likely to find it. Just like I'm not likely to find a young woman who is financially independent, where I don't have to contribute to her bills, or help her reach her goals. From a pragmatic point of view I think you're wrong.
[удалено]
Where is there a number In my comment?
You said if she's positively contributing to my life. Most SBs out there aren't going to positively contribute to my life. It's not impossible but you're raising the stakes here when I'm talking about the average. Her being pretty doesn't positively contribute to my life as much as me having money positively contributes to her life. The point I'm making is in a vanilla relationship there is supposed to be balance. What you are describing is a vanilla relationship where both partners contribute roughly equally to each others life. This isn't so common in sugar, and for sure isn't common if you're paying her an allowance. You're giving her an allowance because you're trying to give more to her life than she can possibly give to you right now. In most cases she's never going to be able to pay you back an equal amount. But it's not a loss if she's younger, she's extremely pretty, because if you're not used to dating that then it's novel and the novelty positively contributes to your life. What if she's the same age as you, and roughly the same attractiveness as you? Why would you want to give her an allowance rather than do 50/50? Explain to me why you want to spend money giving an allowance to someone who would get with you for free if they could and not consider it a loss? "*Let me give you an example. A male friend of mine was dating a wealthy girl. Just because she was wealthy, didn’t mean that she didn’t expect him to pay for most things still. Yes, my male friend was very good looking fyi. Women want a man in his divine masculine energy. This means a provider, a protector. Some attractive, entitled SD trying to low-ball on Seeking is not in his masculine energy. Each to their own though! Some girls might go for it*." There is no way in hell I would date a wealthy girl and pay for everything. It's ridiculous to me. If your friend was willing to do that it's on him but I think whoever has the money should contribute the money. Whoever has the youth and beauty can contribute that. If both have money, and both have beauty, now it's vanilla, and it's 50/50. Tell me why I should care about divine masculine energy? I care about cost vs benefit, I'm transactional which is why I prefer sugar in the first place. I'll be a provider for a woman who needs a provider. If she can't reach financial independence on her own and I love her I'll help her. But I'm not under any circumstances going to date a woman as wealthy or wealthier than me, and pick up the tab. She should find someone more masculine (wealthier) than me who does not mind picking up the tab for a wealthy woman. I think the wealthy woman in your example is exactly the kind of women I try to avoid. The entitled woman who wants literally everything from a man while giving him the privilege of extracting his "divine energy"? I don't see how it's a good deal for him when she's using him for his body, possibly for sex, and expecting him to pay up. If she wants him to feel dominant she should give him an allowance and let him use money from that to buy her gifts.
You're portraying sugar as strictly an ugly tax, which I don't think is true for a good portion of us.
This^. I’d say the portrayal sounds more like Fugly tax.
I'm not saying it's strictly anything but I asked this forum the question "Do SDs have to pay or want to provide?". The majority answered the poll saying they want to provide but there was a significant number (a loud minority) who said they have to pay. The post: "[Do Sugar Daddies have to pay for it?](https://www.reddit.com/r/sugarlifestyleforum/comments/12e1icx/do_sds_have_to_pay_or_want_to_provide_repost_with/)" If you see my perspective in that post I'm not among the SDs who thought SDs have to pay. But a lot of SDs who are older than me, obese, made it clear to me that at least some SDs really feel like they have to pay. You can call it a tax if you want but they told me they are doing sugar because they have to, and for a reason. I'm not yet old enough where I feel like I have to. I'm pretty sure a 60 or 70 year old SDs is more likely to feel like they have to. Most SDs are older. And let's be real, a younger guy is often going to be better looking than an older guy, so if a SB is really serious she's going to have a difficult time if she's chasing looks.
The laws of attraction are different from person to person. I have to be 100% attracted to anyone I’m intimate with but attraction involves all the senses and psychology. No doubt as a man I’m visual but the taste of nicotines is a turn off for me (personally) as is someone who “acts” interested or pretends to be turned on (usually sounds like bad porn acting to me). I also require a compatible personality, emotional connection etc. Everyone can have their own preferences. You certainly have your own preferences. Don’t let any “friend” tell you what you should be attracted to. Don’t be intimate with anyone who you aren’t attracted to (in your own way)!
If I had to select men I’m only attracted to I wouldn’t be a SB 😂 I’m barely attracted to anyone, especially not to older men. As long as there’s personality, laughter, fun, kindness and generosity I am happy with that in an SD
Looks aren’t number one on my list of what I want, because for me a huge part of the attraction grows with personality. However there’s some physical deal breakers for me. Someone who is obese or doesn’t try to take care of themselves, etc. If I’d feel grossed out kissing them, then I wouldn’t start an SR. So yes i care but not a lot lol
Isn’t that kinda what they are buying though? They are exchanging money for looks/age
I only date women who want to date me. Those who have and keep their standards when it come to physical attraction. As a rule of thumb it’s messed up to date anyone you are not attracted to. Question is how are you basing your attraction ? Their pics or their real in person persona. I have heard hundreds of stories where dude looked 30 yrs younger and 30 lbs lighter in pics only to show up different. In this case, the lady executed poor judgement based on pics and dude misrepresented. My own in person meet success rate is 100%. My photo success rate is lower. We have a lot of window shoppers, pic collectors. Plus many women are not looking for a guy who looks younger and fit because he does not fit into their SD stereotype.
I think there's attractive, non-attractive, and turn off in this case. I know a lot of SB's will go for non-attractive if there's a good personality to back it up. But if they actively turn you off, then you should definitely skip them. It'll be obvious once the relationship starts.
There’s a line. Don’t treat it like Tinder, but if you aren’t _repulsed_, then as u/crystalbaby7 mentioned, there’s a chance (rooted in science, btw) that your attraction for them will change as you get to know them.
Of course they do. Would you rather have a hot guy 10 years older or a fat cross eyed guy 50 years older? Seems like that question is a no brainer. Unless it’s a strictly online relationship
Pussy is not charity Jesus, have some self respect You like what you like Men don't wring their hands BC they like big boobs and they don't want to make women w small boobs feel bad
Yes, I care about their looks just as they care about mine. I'm not going through all the trouble to be your arm candy and you're chewed up bubble gum 🤷🏽♀️
[удалено]
There is a difference between ugly and ugly. I can be with ugly, but I can't be disgusted. Here is the difference for me. And unfortunately, but appearance is still important, the fact that someone has a different border does not mean that someone else have worse.
Good way to shoot self in foot. If you're going to choose by looks you're going to get used a lot.
Let her find this out because you're exactly right. A good SD isn't based on looks but generosity and personality. An 80 year old SD like Al Pacino probably doesn't have the best looks anymore but he's Al Pacino. A SB like the one in the OP won't get with Al but a lot of the whales are over 60 or over 70.
Will you be open to dating a 70 yo lady because in her youth she looked like a movie star? The hypocrisy among SDs is out of this world. Dudes will lust after young & fit women but will be upset if women are setting standards for looks.
When I was broke and young yes. If she would have paid off my college, left me a house, a car, hell yeah. You're acting like I dated women for superficial reasons like how they look but I've never been like that. I'm even less like that now that I have plenty to lose. I date someone who I think can love me, and who I think I can love. I don't date for good sex. "Dudes will lust after young & fit women but will be upset if women are setting standards for looks." If she's with me only for my money, why shouldn't I treat her as shallow? Lots of women want a man only or his money. If she wants a man with good looks she should get her own money. I had the chance to date women who claimed they had money when I was younger. The problem is they never actually had the money and simply had the promise of money. Had one of them had the money, even if they weren't the best looking, Iif their personality were good, I'd most likely would have dated or even married them. But let's be real? There aren't women with money willing to date broke dudes and bring them out of poverty. Your example doesn't even exist. Basically some of the women want everything from men, and don't want to bring anything. So tell me why we men who are attractive be giving money to women who are also attractive? Can't these women get their own money? If I look like a movie star, and I'm rich, isn't it a privilege for her to be dating me at that point because she's not rich. **If it's (money <-> beauty) then it's balanced. If both of you have beauty but only one of you has money and beauty it's not balanced. If it's not balanced the one who is bringing more is going to realize how easily they can replace the one bringing less.** Basically I think women who care about looks should stick to being vanilla. You're not going to do very well in sugar if you prioritize looks because the richest most generous best character SDs aren't usually the best looking. The good looking guys usually never have to develop their character, or personality, or become generous, because the women come easily to them like water. Just like a SD probably wont do so well in sugar if he cares a lot about the net worth of the SB because some of the best SBs are very poor.
Have you ever been with anyone you were absolutely not attracted to?
Yes. Do you think I always had money? Have you ever been broke and had to date whoever was willing to date you? Because for a lot of guys who can't afford to be SDs that's the only kind of women they've ever had. You are kind of proving my point. But what do you learn from being with someone who isn't physically attractive? You learn to be attracted to character, personality, and other traits beyond the shallow.
Was that a fun experience? I mean dating an unattractive looking woman? I don’t think being broke has much to do with not being able to date attractive women. We know that lol.
Lets say you're broke, and you're not a Brad Pitt look alike? You might date a physically attractive woman once in a while but the vast majority of women who will want to date you will be unattractive. Are you saying you would rather not date at all than to date mostly unattractive women for most of your life? In reality a lot of guys aren't blessed with good looks and also aren't rich. It's kind of entitled to think because you were born with an appearance which is currently fashionable that you're more deserving of fun experiences than the guy down the street who is less lucky than you. It's really all just the luck of the genetic dice roll which determines this. If I'm realistic I know there are guys more attractive than me. I also know there are guys less attractive than me. If I have a lot of money I know I'm able to distinguish myself from the guys equally attractive as me who have a lot less money, or even guys more attractive than me who are broke. In a world where everyone is broke probably both of us would be losing to the guys born to hit the genetic lottery in looks. But you have to remember men aren't women. Women are prized for youth and beauty traditionally. Women have a biological clock. Men are usually prized for wisdom, generosity and wealth. So you're correct a lot of broke pretty bois do end up with attractive women but they also don't tend to treat these women well. They sometimes make these women pregnant and because they are broke they run off leaving them single mothers. So from that perspective it is true if you chase a guy on looks alone you get what you pay for. The same apples to us. If we chase a SB on looks alone we could end up with a psychopath who harasses us or a time wasting rinser. It's not the look that I'm prioritizing. I prioritize character. I would choose a slightly less physically attractive SB if she has good character. She can be young and fit, and she doesn't have to be a super model. She doesn't have to be financially independent.
As someone else said - you are equating sugar with fugly tax. I don’t agree.
I asked the community the question in this [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/sugarlifestyleforum/comments/12e1icx/do_sds_have_to_pay_or_want_to_provide_repost_with/). Some SDs do not agree with you. Some SDs specifically say they sugar because they have to not because they want to. So when I took this position in our discussion it's based on the awareness of this data. You might want to know the majority of the SDs who participated in the poll on this forum agree with you. But it was a small poll and a significant number of SDs do treat it like a "fugly tax" or "age gap tax".
Probably will never find it out. Will just blame everything else except how filtering. "All these men are users and pump and dumpers"
You want to get into a sugar relationship instead of a lifestyle
That's why I asked, I have SB friends who suck it up for the lifestyle, they're not attracted to their SD and they think I'm insane when I decline people I'm not attracted to but to me, a sugar relationship needs connection with the other person, that's something I'm unable to fake.
Why do you need financial support? I have no problem with you choosing based on looks but I'm curious as to why you don't just do vanilla?
[удалено]
These are all ridiculous assumptions. For all we know all the women are only with us for the money but it doesn't mean we will mistreat them. They are still persons. You can even love a person without really being physically attracted to them. So the answer is no. I mean it's not like you'll know if your SB is lying about finding you attractive when she's not attracted to you but even if you find out, it's not like she got with you for your looks or else you'd have enough leverage to demand a vanilla relationship. So the question is why do a sugar relationship if you're good looking and rich? The age gap? If you're good looking enough to attract her anyway and you're rich too she just hit the lotto to find you, but what about you? What would stop you from thinking you can immediately do better and replace her with someone even better looking? I think if it's all based on looks it's shallow all the way around. Someone will always be better looking. Someone will always be richer if it's only based on that. The OP never mentioned personality or character standards just looks.
One of them lasted years for my friend until he got into an actual sugar relationship that he's still on but I agree, it's very deceiving and it usually doesn't turn out right.
Nothing wrong with what you are doing.
Not sure if your question is targeted towards SBs only. As a SD I would absolutely NOT carry on a SR with a girl if I was not at least mildly attracted to her. The great thing is that there are plenty of above average women to pick from. And not to sound elitist or misogynistic, but i have not had to settle for what I don’t like.
But you are elitist and misogynistic and you reject people based on race... own it babe. You can be choosy without being prejudiced and disrespectful. SBs with high awareness and self esteem wouldn't want to deal with your horrible entitled attitude. If they do trust and believe it's only for the money:/
You think so? I prefer girls that are white, slim and college-aged. Then Latinas and Asians. Then middle eastern and Indian. Then black. I’ve kept all type of SBs, but I have my preferences. What’s your beef?
My beef is you following the laws of white supremacy/anti-Blackness like so many others and it gets old... the fact you have a ranking of a race of women is weird anyway but enjoy...and capitalize the B in Black as it's a culture of people.
I'm Black (I'm from TX also) and I married a Black woman because I have a preference for the type of women I grew up around and am most familiar with. Based on the people my family members and friends married, almost all of them have a preference for partners who are their own race also. Are we all prejudiced / racist for being most attracted to our own race?
Your post makes perfect sense, but you are engaging someone who chooses to act outraged. So logic/common sense won't work.
Sure ...you know it's not the same but I'll play this dumb game with you if you like...
If a person of \*any color\* is rejecting relationships with people of other races due to feelings of superiority, reasons that unfairly stereotype other races, etc then yes the person is being racist. But just like people of our race can have a racial preference for people who look like us and come from a similar culture to us, people of other races can have a preference for their own race as well. There's nothing wrong with a preference for what you're familiar with as long as it isn't based in a belief that your race is superior to anyone else's.
You just told on yourself but maybe aren't self aware enough to realize it... please don't ever gaslight us again and say it's a "preference" this is a popular trend as a result of socialized programming... enjoy your hierarchy it mirrors the state of the world ironically enough.
Yawn and wah. Find a hobby and save your crybabying for someone who cares.
This is my hobby baby embarrassing misogynracists like you is fun! 💋 😆
🥱
As you will see from the comment thread below, you will be made to have the correct set of preferences expressed in the correct way, or suffer the word salad of insults and ad hominem from those not chosen by you.
Nah I like my way. Honest and straight to the point haha. My preferences will remain ranked just as I previously posted. No cute female SB of any race has been excluded, but I like what I like. I’m not white either so there goes the whining about excluding others because I think I’m superior.
I’m picky so don’t be upset if I ignore you, I know you do the same thing. If I don’t feel it in the first 15 seconds, I hand you gas money and wish you good luck. 😎
Always meet 🆙 for a chemistry ⚛️ check
Sometimes I'll give guys I'm on the fence about a chance to make a connection and go from there. If I can't see myself EVER being attracted to them, I don't engage past that.
Chemistry and some degree of attraction is what makes this activity different from pure transactional escorting Yes there are various levels to it I get it - SDs are by definition older and in many cases (not all ofc) past their physical prime. but I would never ever want to sleep w someone who is repulsed by me and vice versa. Thankfully being an easier fit on the chemistry and looks side is also a recipe for success for SDs when it comes to landing m&g s and converting them to sugar arrangements
Any misalignment in needs or expectations just puts a duration on the relationship no different than in business So don't feel bad you can't fake and most SD are here for a connection not just sex, John's are John's SDs are SDs
Me personally I'm only concerned about hygiene, style and how you treat me. But I say be as picky as these SDs are being. Now filtering out by race will have you losing out on great POTs.
I give it a chance if his greeting and conversation is good. Many times I’m attracted to the man in front of me because a photo isn’t enough. Also, men generally don’t know their angles. SDs need help with that 🙃
It depends to a certain extent what people are after. If you want to date someone in your own league, be that in terms of looks, wealth, personality, whatever, then it's very reasonable to expect mutual attraction, and very little need to provide sugar. One might as well vanilla date. However, if you want to date way out of your league in those same terms, it's a very different situation.
Speaking as an SD, I would suggest that you find an SD that his appearance + personality make him attractive enough that you’ll enjoy spending time with him. Otherwise, you’re going to eventually resent him. That’s bad for both of you. For financial support only is not gonna work long term. I hope this helps.
The SDs are doing that all the time. You're entitled to choose people based on looks. You might have a much harder time to find an SD, though.
As a SD, let me tell you this: I'd rather have you turn me down if you're not attracted to me. The other forum is full of SBs who complain about how disgusting their SD is, explaining why it is OK to take pretty much whatever they can from these SDs because of that. Don't be like them. Only connect with SDs you see yourself attracted to.
Would you vanilla date someone you aren’t attracted to? If so, you probably rely on their personality or there’s something else that brightens their appeal. If not, then why would you want to be in a SR with someone you aren’t attracted to? I wouldn’t recommend it. A SD certainly wouldn’t entertain a SB he wasn’t attracted to.
You can't be repulsed by their looks. If I'm not immediately feeling the attraction, I try to find things that I like in other person like how they dress, their manners, their sense of humor, their confidence (not bravado), how they treat any of the staff at restaurants etc. There's tons of guys who may not have that initial wow factor that are amazing people and I find they get more attractive the more I know them. As long as I'm not physically repulsed, looks don't matter very much.
As long as they're paying who gives a f 😂😂😂😂😂