Now hiring for Sugar Daddy:)

[Gotyour6]

Originally Posted by xavierz21

is she supposed to sit with her cell in her hand and wait for my call 24/7?

If I am paying what I pay for one then yes. That is what they do
They also have to have a job or be in college.

I will not support them 100% like buy food, regular clothes, buy TP or paper towels etc.

I do not give an allowance for so many visits. That is a hooker on retainer. I have one that I call my lawyer and he fucks me every month right on time.

If those are what you are looking for then call it something else other than a sugar baby and stop corrupting the definition. Call it you are looking for a hooker on retainer.


You women want a steady income, not a sugar daddy. Find a bunch of regular guys and call them sugar daddies.

[PleasantSurprise]

Two men willing to provide their SB with the same things, can very easily have different beliefs. One might say have your own life, but when I want you, you drop everything for me. The other might say either we're exclusive or there's no deal.

The impression I am getting is that it is best to not assume anything. Since each person has their own beliefs, just ask them.

Do you expect me to be exclusive?
If the SD says yes, then you know.
If the SD says no, then you know.

I don't think a SB should assume she knows the answer to this question, only to find out her assumption was wrong.

With it being demonstrated in this thread that there are SD's who don't include an exclusivity clause, I would recommend to not assume anything. Make it easy and just.... ask.

I have a question for Gotyour6: If a question is asked of the SB that she, for whatever reason, is uncomfortable answering.... such as the age question..... what is the best way to handle that? I know in your example she said 19 when she was really 18. If she didn't feel comfortable telling you she was 18, what would have been a better way for her to answer the question/approach it?

[John Bull]

There are any number of good reasons to expect and demand exclusivity and if you choose not to, then you are giving up those things or you are being stupid. Please don't take that as a slam. It is not meant to be. Just a statement of fact.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by John Bull

No Olivia, you're looking at this as a Provider/Companion, not as a SB. Your statement just proves the point that a Provider/Companion cannot be a SB.

If you are defining a sugar baby as a woman that only has one client, then yes, you are correct. But let's face it, even those women still carry on UTR as a very reliable generality. If you are not, then you would be overly amazed. It's all in the planning and expectations.

[Seeker]

I use this site to screen out potential sugar babies who have reviews from multiple clients.

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

If you are defining a sugar baby as a woman that only has one client, then yes, you are correct. But let's face it, even those women still carry on UTR as a very reliable generality. If you are not, then you would be overly amazed. It's all in the planning and expectations.

Olivia I don't know you but I know you have a stellar reputation as a great Companion but dear lady, you are proving the point with every post. Companions can play at being a SB but they just cannot be SB's. The mindset is completely different.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Olivia I don't know you but I know you have a stellar reputation as a great Companion but dear lady, you are proving the point with every post. Companions can play at being a SB but they just cannot be SB's. The mindset is completely different.

Let me try it another way. I had a friend that was a SD. I would consider an $80,000 car, paying my mortgage, paid my monthly average when we traveled and God knows how much in money jewelry and world wide travel. However you slice that, THAT IS A SD. It just is. Nonetheless, I still worked.

If you are talking about a working girl that has several patrons and still sees hourly clients on the side, then I will agree with you in that there is a different dynamic, but not a different mindset as you claim. There have been too many men on this thread alone that have said they feel otherwise so I'm not approaching it from a purely female / working girl mentality.

[Fancyinheels]

I don't see any reason in the world why a provider cannot be a sugar baby EXCEPT money. I was quite committed to my second long-term "patron" and emotionally invested (utterly devastated when he died unexpectedly), but he just couldn't provide all of my income, so I had no choice but to see other clients. He understood and was fine with that. If someone were able to fully commit to being my SOLE financial supporter and desire exclusivity, no problem, but we're talking $8,000 a month minimum just for me to burn my bridges and my client list, and I would think far more for younger, more attractive "eye candy" providers. How realistic is that for most fellows?

As has been pointed out, even the perfect SB/SD arrangement ends. Either the fellow gets bored and moves on, moves away, or moves to the afterlife. If the lady has completely stopped advertising, has withdrawn from all boards, taken down her website, basically demolished her existence as a companion, what is she supposed to do as she re-establishes her reputation? (Out of sight, out of mind pretty quickly in this profession.) Yes, as was stated, the SB should plan ahead and put money away, but it's going to take a large sum, at least a year's income if she's been "retired" for any extended amount of time, to sustain her while she re-launches herself. That's a factor that must be taken into consideration when the initial agreements are being made. (And EVERYTHING has to be discussed and made CRYSTAL clear from the beginning.)

I submit that it isn't always the working girl who is the problem in a SB/SD dynamic, but the gentleman, who may expect too much for not enough of a contribution. Practicality has to come into play here.

[Fancyinheels]

Originally Posted by Seeker

I use this site to screen out potential sugar babies who have reviews from multiple clients.

With all due respect, Seeker, I find this ludicrous. If you could completely support your SB, why would she NEED to keep those multiple clients? The fact that she has multiple reviews telling you what a GOOD experience you can expect ought to be an asset, as you'll know what you'll be getting up front. Or, like a used car, are you worried about mileage?

[heinz5710]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Sugar daddies find you not the other way around.

They don't find you if you aren't interested! Providers such as yourself make it plain that they are interested in multiple SD because your material needs much exceed what most men are willing to pay for exclusive service. It is the law of supply and demand. At one time, you were running a special 'off the clock' option. That is a much better solution than paying your rent every month. Alas, I'm too old for a classy lady like you. We'd need to spend the extra time watching old movies. In any event, we disagree on who needs to make the first moves. If a lady wants a SD, she needs to let him know. It takes two to make an agreement. Posting here is as good as any other place.

[heinz5710]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Let me try it another way. I had a friend that was a SD. I would consider an $80,000 car, paying my mortgage, paid my monthly average when we traveled and God knows how much in money jewelry and world wide travel. However you slice that, THAT IS A SD. It just is. Nonetheless, I still worked.

You make my point! You do the cost analysis. Even were one to be accepted as your client, it is obvious you have no desire to be a SB. While I'm sure that gentlemen who are offering more get your priority, you have no desire to be kept. Good for you! I guess that reaffirms what I thought about you. You were in it for the great sex and not so much for the money. Me too but providers are like Bill Clinton. They don't consider oral only to be sex.

[John Bull]

I suspect you and I are going to have to agree to disagree Olivia but let me try one more time. You, and some of the other ladies on this thread, are working from the assumption that a SD completely supports his SB. That is rare!! I've never even attempted that though in some cases I could have. All my SB's worked. They just didn't work in the demi-monde. One was a minor executive who liked things she couldn't afford. One was a clerk who needed help with her expenses. And so it goes.
So again, I make the point that the dedicated working Companion can not be a SB because she is much to invested in the money and whatever else keeps her in the Biz.

[heinz5710]

+1 John
Since I have money, I've run the proposition by several ladies. The result is what you see here. Hiring a mistress can be very expensive but the ladies here are mostly unsuitable. They can get better sex and more money elsewhere. I have discovered that if you have enough, and if you are flexible you can have your ATF and eat her too!

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by heinz5710

You make my point! You do the cost analysis. Even were one to be accepted as your client, it is obvious you have no desire to be a SB.

I wasn't willing to have just one client. That seems counter intuitive.

Originally Posted by heinz5710

While I'm sure that gentlemen who are offering more get your priority, you have no desire to be kept.

Au contraire, one thing I never did and tell ladies not to do is "Better Deal" a client. That only makes sense in the short run. Cancelling on clients on short notice only gets you less clients in the end.

You are also wrong on another count. I can assure you I never, like as in never, was a clock watcher. Even when I traveled I allowed two hours between appointments. I actually wanted to enjoy myself. The more fun I had, the more fun my client had, and therefore, the more clients I had. Bad business and not terribly nice to make clients feel they aren't important to you or worse, less important than someone else. Bad indeed.

Originally Posted by heinz5710

Good for you! I guess that reaffirms what I thought about you. You were in it for the great sex and not so much for the money. Me too but providers are like Bill Clinton. They don't consider oral only to be sex.

Of course I was in it for the money. Being that I'm a woman, sex is available to me more readily than to men. It doesn't mean I don't like my job. I treated it as a profession not a work-a-day job.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by John Bull

I suspect you and I are going to have to agree to disagree Olivia but let me try one more time. You, and some of the other ladies on this thread, are working from the assumption that a SD completely supports his SB. That is rare!! I've never even attempted that though in some cases I could have. All my SB's worked. They just didn't work in the demi-monde. One was a minor executive who liked things she couldn't afford. One was a clerk who needed help with her expenses. And so it goes.
So again, I make the point that the dedicated working Companion can not be a SB because she is much to invested in the money and whatever else keeps her in the Biz.

OK, if THAT makes sense now. We were having a disconnect. She needs to have her own income. If not here, then a job of some kind. However, and this a big however, I'd not allow my BF to pay my bills or whatever. A lady needs to have a purse, and by that I mean be able to pay her bills, on her own. If something happens to him, the lady is in a miserable place financially on top of emotionally.