So during my foray into finding more SBs, I kept encountering POTS who in their profile offered companionship. I just thought it was a euphemistic term to avoid censors. When I checked that they were up for a mutually beneficial arrangement I didn't think more about the word. Come to find out when I met them that what they wanted was a ppm each time and they would hang out with me and that over time they would get comfortable with sex. Yeah right, I'm going to pay to date with the "hope" I'll get some pussy if I play my cards right. Dream on ladies! Just wondered if anyone else had encountered that. I wonder if they think that's what sugaring is.

Especially with POT's that have little or no experience in the Bowl. Often, it matches their civilian dating style. I.e.: not doing hookups but looking for 2-3 dates with a guy before.  For many women, sex is much more than a physical act of slippery friction. Instead, they feel they must have some emotional connection, even if they are getting financial help. And it may take some time to build that connection.

 
I have had some SB's who wanted a second or 3rd date before going BCD. If I think she is worth the wait, I make it clear that I'll cover date expenses, but allowance won't start until the "formal arrangement" starts.  The last time I went through this, I had to make clear on the 3rd date that the next would include BCD and allowance or I would move on. She ended up being amazing in bed (5'6" slim AA, very submissive and enthusiastic!) for a modest allowance.  The $300 investment I made in three modest dinners was an acceptable expense given the return I received.  

 
To be sure, the reddit and ticktok pollution floating around tries to cast sugaring as simping, where men throw thousands of dollars at IG influencers just for the privilege of looking at her from across the table at Nobu. POT's with that perspective should be politely rejected as soon as you see what's up.  

 
Life is good

 
The Cat

Do you offer the allowance for no sex?  I do not.  It's pretty clear some girls just want to get paid to go to dinner.  I tell plenty of girls, we can meet, I'll buy drinks/dinner/coffee.  If we like each other we can move on to the arrangement or meet another time.  Or, if we don't like each other, call it there.  

I do not pay just for dinner.  I am looking for full dates.  If you are not ready for that I don't mind being patient but would expect that in return.

As I explained, I tell her I am willing to take her on 1-2 more "get comfortable" dates to build trust and connection and I will pay for dinner, but there will be no allowance until we go BCD - what I referred to as actually starting an arrangement.  

 
Dates with no sex and no allowance is not an arrangement.  (The carve out exception is WYP where the guy offers a "date incentive" payment for the first date. I usually offer between $75-$100, rarely as much as $150, and never pay for subsequent dates unless we start a BCD arrangement. And for WYP dates I only book moderately-priced places, preferably just coffee dates.)  

 
Dates with no sex and with allowance is simping, and is to be avoided.  

 
Dates with sex and no allowance is, well, dating, and is what we all wish we could reliably have.  

 
Life is good

 
The Cat

I ran into this recently.  I found a great POT.  We texted, then we talked on the phone and now we are getting ready to meet.  She doesn't seem like the type who will go BCD on the M&G date.  She wants to meet in person and determine if I'm someone she can bang.   I'm getting the impression that she is expecting cash for these initial "get to know you" meetings.  I am trying to figure out how to tell her I only pay for BCD dates without making her sound like a hooker, which I know will turn her off.  How do you have that discussion with a POT?

I agree with all you lads. My policy is I'm happy to meet and get to know them, but no allowance until BCD. Up until recently I have received zero push back to that policy. Why I posted the initial thread is that recently (the lat 3+ months) the POTs are starting to assume I'm paying them from the get go. It must be a new "policy" that the POTs invented during their social media chatter. My current SB, we went out 3 times before allowance and BCD because it helped us really get to know each other. I think it worked because we have been together 2.5 years and get along like lovebirds.

Minty,  

This does require some delicate maneuvering.  When I have a POT who wants to meet a few more times before agreeing to BCD, assuming I want to accommodate her, I frame it as the difference between an interview and starting a new role.  

 
Interviews are conducted to allow both sides to see if there is a good fit along several dimensions. In this case, personality, physical, and financial fit are all important. So I will tell her I respect her request to spend a little more time with me to make her confident that this will be good for each of us. And then I tell her that once we are both ready to commit to a formal arrangement, we can each start providing the promised benefits under discussion. I always frame it as a pending mutual decision. Ok you are not ready.. well neither am I.  

 
Now I would never boil that down to no money without sex. But that's the implied intent from the interview context.  

 
This has the advantage of reinforcing your desire for an ongoing relationship, rather than a BnB (Bang n Bail).  And so it's the opposite of the hooker chat, which is about instant gratification for instant compensation.  

 
If she agrees, then it's time to frame an acceptable time period to make the mutual decision. I usually will accept up to 3, non-allowance dates (but I pay for date expenses) before I tell her it's time to make a decision. I explain that if we both want date #4 and more, it's time to officially start the arrangement on that date.  Just keep in mind that you can always walk away if it isn't progressing, or you think she's just sponging free dinners off you.  

 
We've all heard that a women knows if she will sleep with a guy within the first 5 seconds of their meeting.  The follow up time after that decision is just her doing the calculus in how much value she can get from the deal. In the Sugar Bowl, a legit POT already did the 5-second decision when she looked at your profile. If she sees your pics and text and thinks "I would never fuck that guy," she's not likely to message you or return your message. So the rest is just her fine tuning her expectations and obligations for the arrangement.   BTW the reverse is true for us. If you see a profile where the POT is just barf-ugly (in your subjective opinion) you move on and never look back.  

 
Life is good

 
The Cat

Minty, Herb 'sadvice is spot on, as usual.  Here's a few more thoughts.  the language we use in these negotiations can really have a positive or negative effect on the outcome. Even when different words mean exactly the same thing, the implications can make them land very differently.  That's one reason I never say PPM, and if a SB uses that term, I very gently tell them let's call it a Gift Per Visit.  PPM implies I'm paying her for a service, which implies prostitution, or paying her for her time, which implies escorting.  I never pay my SBs!  I give them gifts.  

If I'm asked to provide $ before going BCD I tell them that once we begin an arrangement, I am very comfortable providing my SB with a gift of cash every time we get together.  But we're not there yet.  Right now, we are both deciding if an arrangement is a good fit for us both.   That's about as delicate as I can say it, although we all know it means no money without sex!