If not why?

Just a little query as I've seen a lot of providers on the sugardaddy4me site...

XXX-Giselle

Still a pay for service type of business. I would say that a sugar daddy would want his sugar baby a little less " high profile"

Depends on your 'arrangement'. I was on seeking arrangement website & did find some 'true' sugar babies. But, there are some girls on that site that would just do the 'one-time' thing (like an escort). I did end up finding a couple of sugar babies, who you can see and hang out regularly with (and even travel with). They do get compensated, but nothing like a 'high profile escort'. So, in that sort of an arrangement, the SD is not a hobbyist.

Yes (short answer).

I was just curious but I'd never be a good sugarbaby as I'm not one for being at anyone's beck and call.  I once had a client who wanted to hole me up and pay for my every need so long as I quit and be there whenever he wanted.  Uhhhhh - I don't think so.  

I'M A PEOPLE PERSON!

Thanks for the information though guys, I appreciate it.

XXX-Giselle

If the SD is a hobbyist, is the SB a provider? Seems to me that if it is a LTR that is pretty much monogamous, then he is not a hobbyist, and she is not a provider.

Most of what we discuss here, and what happens on Seeking Arrangement, is not long term, and both parties have other P4P going on, so they are hobbyists and providers. But there is a world out there that does not overlap so much with ours, and those guys may not be hobbying. They just have a GF they give lots of money to.

From an LE point of view, I doubt they would even try to pursue that as prostitution. Not saying that is the best or only test, but it is another data point.

SD/SB gets used in a lot of ways, too. Here it seems to mean a guy is a very good, regular client and gets special treatment. Someone a lady can really count on to provide $X per month, and other kinds of support when needed. In the world of Seeking Arrangement, it is often used as a way to deny that what is happening is really p4p, because the ladies are not prostitutes, damn it (ask them and see how they respond)!!! So it is just a lie to make it all seem more socially acceptable. She is seeing lots of guys and they are helping to pay her bills, but she is not a whore.

Makes me laugh, Giselle, to consider some guy wanting to own you. He was a little confused, playing the  "You're wonderful, now change" game. Wish I could say it never happened to me, but it is still funny to see others fall into that trap.

zig

He is paying for a sexual relationship he wouldn't have otherwise.  She is accepting pay for a relationship she wouldn't have otherwise.  I see nothing different from standard hobbying except for possibly some of the terms and expectations.  Ive met a number of girls that have been discussed on this board that have  SD's and are lower volume or more of a part timer as a result.

The SD/SB relationship is more of a lover/mistress sort of thing. It may be less physical than the H/P transaction and perhaps more enduring. Sometimes SD pays without the expectation of  play and at other times he plays without paying. The relationship is not a monogamous one for either party.

(I've been on sugar-sites for the last year+ and have friends on them, so I thought I'd bite at this one. Slightly biased. Not looking for a boyfriend, love my regulars, don't have hang-ups about P4P, and like directness.)

The relationships:

Range from ongoing financial support with no expectation for sex to one-off P4Ps.

The "Sugar Daddies""

1) Individuals who have been blacklisted in the pro-world.

2) Individuals who read the "sugar-baby=cheap & better escort" ad for a sugar-dating site on BD and thought they'd check it out.

3) guys who want services pros do not provide (bare-back, etc.)

4) guys who aren't comfortable providing verification/screening information.

5) Guys who want to jump-start into a 'regular-client/provider relationship'/have issues with paying. It's still NSA & Quid-pro-Quo, but they pretend like they're being 'generous'/'helping a girl out.' Also, the per-hour GFE fantasy is expanded across the relationship, and they think they have a hot, sexually open girlfriend/mistress.

6) Guys looking for free phone-sex/erotic-email-exchange/web-cam services.

7) Guys who want a full-on girlfriend/mistress.

The "Sugar Babies":

Some of them want a rich boyfriend. Others want P4P. Some of them are in it just for the $$$. Others aren't. Some of them want to wait for 'natural chemistry' to lead to intimacy. Others will put out right away. Some ask for very high $$ amounts. Others don't. Some want exclusive. Others don't.

Sugar dating advice:

1) None of the guys (okay, not true, most) don't want to discuss payment immediately/explicitly ever (either would dilute the gfe/mistress fantasy you're providing)...so you have to play that game.

2) The amount you get is largely based on your negotiating powers. Describing concrete financial needs, waiting a date or two, looking for someone married/out of town (so they don't become needy attached), and putting on an award-winning GFE (without the services) performance over those dates is the best way to go.

3) If you like 30+ businessmen/lawyers/doctors, it can also be a fun way to make friends who'll treat you to meals, take you on trips, may or may not buy you stuff without expecting to be serviced.

So - that was just about sugar-dating websites.

I've had clients become friends; and I've had regular clients where the relationship shifted from P4P to a less-formal monthly thing. I do definitely think those are different from a hobbyist-provider relationship. But it didn't start off that way. It was more of a "we-developed-chemistry/trust/friendship AND THEN" decided to change the relationship.

Just me, but the sugar-dating "preface" is a real turn-off for me - what is running through my head when I meet these people is: "We're strangers. You want to screw me. You have $$ you aren't willing to part with unless I put out. I'm about as sure I'll see you again as I'm sure I'll see any clients. [blink..blink..] So...uh...am I missing something?"