Archangel

Thanks everyone. This helps me in deciding whether to reach out.

He asked for an Uber to my place and then never showed up.

https://rent.men/Gymnast Does anyone have any recent intel? I’m looking to potentially hire a guy for a few nights, and wondered if he might be good. I read the other threads but didn’t find anything specific. If you want, you can DM me. I’m looking for feedback. Thanks!

Anthonyflexx of Philly scammed on Uber

For one, I suspect you don’t intend for the disorganized “movement” for sex work appreciation, in the broad sense. You have an organized view of striking unless things are done the way you want it on particular platforms. That’s, as you present it, unlikely to happen outside of organized labor, a union. We’ll have to disagree on Rentmen. I have my opinions about your views on the business side of the business, but if I express them I’ll get read the riot act by many here. So we’ll just have to disagree.

RPReplay_Final1690777407.mov 🤔 Hits close to home?! 😂

The oldest profession going on strike…the profession that always finds a way whenever everything is set up to work against it down through the ages going on strike…never thought I’d come across that.

They also can’t help some providers are full of shit and play games. Especially the men who are flakes and think they’re owed money because of they look good and always looking for to cash in on dick and ass. If you understand it’s an advertising platform, why are you looking for them to regulate? They provide the platform. The onus is on escort and client to do the vetting.

Ohhhhhh how I am tickled pink ti see you say this. There are far too many escorts who think they’re owed everything without delivering any decency let alone professionalism. A million applauses for this!

Tell your Congressperson that RM holds an effective monopoly on the market like Microsoft or Apple or Facebook. They can prosecute or at least hold hearings for anti-trust violations. 👍🏻 I’m sure your concerns about market equity will receive an honest hearing from the law!

That’s huge, in my opinion. Worth far more than money and “stuff.”

$150,000 per year, tax free, plus a car allowance, plus guaranteed 4 annual vacations, one per season. Plus an expense allowance for clothing, personal appearance, plus contributions to an IRA in his name… I just question why any sugar baby would need or want more if I were or any man were doing all that…If he can’t embrace exclusivity under those conditions (or conditions that are less than that because, let’s admit it, those are good terms of employment), I don’t think he’d be the right sugar baby for me because quite frankly it’s about him at that point, not the arrangement. It’s seeing me or whoever as the gravy train engineer. We’re so worried that the sugar daddy would be possessive but we don’t care that the sugar baby doesn’t give a fuck about anything but himself. Trying so hard not to fall off the right side of the road we fall off the left side.

I believe it’s a fair expectation. Maybe a sugar daddy is fine with it. In that case, who am I to judge. The idea that a employer expects employees to stay out of the market with similar other employers is nothing new, if we want to be crude in our discussion. It’s very common for doctors to have non-compete clauses in their contracts. I’m not suggesting we get that petty about it. I just am saying that it just seems crazy to me that a sugar baby who is getting for all intents and purposes pampered and spoiled shouldn’t need – or really want? – to have anything but an exclusive relationship. If I were a sugar daddy and showering a guy with a good life with no real expectations other than companionship and sex, then I know if he felt he needed to go elsewhere for even more, I’d feel hurt and as if I were satisfying, enough, or acceptable. I’d also question the whole nature of the relationship. I don’t relish feeling like an ATM anymore than an escort relishes being a possession.

Exclusivity doesn’t mean possessiveness. Husbands normally are exclusive. One doesn’t possess the other. Saying exclusivity is possessiveness belies how someone sees it. It’s not a bad thing. To me, to be exclusive with someone sounds appealing. I never could understand how guys can maintain multiple relationships, open or secret. An exclusive relationship makes it easier to be committed to one guy and give him the good attention he deserves. I don’t see it as a bad thing but a good thing. It’s not possessiveness but commitment.

It seems Matt’s profile is expired again. I haven’t heard from him, so I hope he’s okay. Aside from the business aspect.

Agreed. But I’m still waiting to be hear how being a sugar baby doesn’t mean exclusivity in all those ways… It seems to me the exception to sugaring exclusivity is not being exclusive.

Some here are suggesting that that very assumption is flawed in a sugar relationship. The escort shouldn’t be expected to be exclusive with the sugar daddy as a sugar baby. It’s not about exclusivity; it’s about access. I haven’t yet heard what that even means, but that was literally said in this thread. For the record, as I understand it, an escort who’s kept like NEET boyfriend or husband of a wealthy man should expect to be exclusive with his sugar daddy unless said sugar daddy is okay with his sugar baby off doing his own thing. It just doesn’t seem to make good business sense to me from the perspective of the sugar daddy to me, but hey – what do I know! I’ll never be a sugar baby!

I understand what you’re saying. But if you’re paying for time it’s reasonable to expect the escort to spend time with you when you want him to. That’s the job. The work…It’s work for an escort, right? Look – I’m not suggesting we run these guys ragged. I’m only saying the idea that if we’re paying for something (time or companionship), we aren’t really out of line to expect that these guys spend time with us and provide companionship. When I have guys for a weekend or a trip, there are natural ebbs and flows of time together (the “nice to have someone around” mentality), but the idea that his personal social needs come before the needs come before his professional responsibility during that time seems wrong to me. Are we just paying these guys in the hopes they follow through with spending time with us and providing companionship? I think on the whole both escorts and clients are reasonable. But the hard-and-fast rules, or saying “this or that is the way it should be done” really doesn’t allow for any kind of uniqueness in these arrangements. Nor does it allow for personality to come out. Maybe I’m a napper in the afternoon. He could have a two-hour block to himself then. Just an example. But if it’s a rigid rule, it seems destined to disappoint someone. And in my experience, like any business, the service provider comes out ahead – unless the service provider is willing to be flexible and sometimes go a bit further than is asked. I know I’ve gone further than asked with escorts, and sometimes it pays dividends and sometimes I’ve been burnt. But it’s a risk that’s worth taking in the long run for a good experience, and it’s part of being able to respond as an integrated person in a world that’s not black-and-white.

Shakespeare wrote a play…

If you’re paying someone to ESCORT you, you have every right to expect them to escort you….

Is this to say that boyfriends and spouses don’t trust each other? 🤔 Perhaps I misunderstand a sugar relationship. A well-to-do man pays a boy $100k+, IRA, expenses, travel, etc. The boy gets to proceed with life as if said well-to-man were not in his life any differently than another client? Access to what? Unless I’m missing something, access to an escort isn’t worth that sort of arrangement. I’ve never had trouble with access with hiring guys, and it didn’t cost me $100k+, IRA, expenses, travel, etc.

It wasn’t necessary to call me wise ass…and nowhere did I say it was “so easy.” Escorting and sugar babying I’d also classify as different. Someone who’s bringing in $100k+ per annum with every other conceivable expense in life covered…why does he need to work otherwise? Escorting wouldn’t need to be in the equation anymore. My questions were genuine, and not meant as an attack. There’s way too much catfighting in this forum. But also thank you – I know not to hire you. @Coolwave35– Agree that it should be more than just sex. I suppose I did put it a bit crudely. That said, there are plenty of people (not escorts) who make less than $100k year without perks at *one* job. You say the guys you had live with weren’t off the market. It seems to me that’s what the nature of a sugar relationship is…exclusivity. Granted, all that would hopefully be worked out in an agreement beforehand. I like to think that both parties go into this with sincerity but it seems that a lot of talk here between clients and escorts (cf. Rob Hagen above as a prime example) assume the worst possible intentions of the other and are rooted in distrust and disdain. Anyone who’s going to live with you, paid or unpaid, you need to be able to trust and they need to be able to trust you. I’m constantly flabbergasted how many guys here, escorts and clients, will put themselves in an exposed situation like sex with someone they harbor underlying distrust for. Whether for a hookup, an overnight, or sugaring.

Speaking of tangentially related discussion… What makes an escort believe he should get $100k+ plus perks (innumerable) as a sugar baby? I understand that some guys can afford that. Not the question. What makes an escort think he should get that for basically doing nothing but be available for sex? Speaking of expectations… I’m assuming under such an arrangement the escort is off the market, so to speak. And if the sugar daddy says, “tonight you’re to be waiting for me with dinner,” then that’s not question. No matter if the daddy can afford in-housing chefs or not. To me, it seems like when you’re shelling out that kind of compensation for someone who’s *working* for you, you get to define pretty much all the terms of engagement. What if sugar daddy says no hanging out with your friends? What if sugar daddy likes quiet nights at home, not the “scene,” and wants sugar baby to be home every night? Is $100k+ plus perks worth it to be effectively an indentured servant? I’ve thought about arrangements before where I’d have a guy live with me etc. but the expectation would be much more akin to a partnership, where I cover living expenses and other things, he gets to live with me and provides physical intimacy, but on the whole there would be a lot of autonomy for us both. Perhaps that’s not “sugaring,” but it seems healthier to me than throwing so many material resources at it to have someone beholden. And if I were investing that kind of level of resources in someone, I sure as hell would expect him to prioritize me and understand that without question. That seems like an unfair, unhealthy, even dehumanizing arrangement to me, though.

The thing about a sugar relationship is the line there is very ambiguous.

When I’ve been on vacation with escorts, I’ve found alone time is just fine and even good. If I had a real boyfriend or husband, he would have to understand that I need alone time. I believe it’s normal and healthy even.