Seeking “Sugar” Arrangements

[pubic_assistance]

1 hour ago, Unicorn said:

However, the reality is that it's just legal sophistry,

Of course it is.

I don't understand why some people even question that.

Obviously if you're breaking the law, you don't go around telling people you're breaking the law.

 

[+ tassojunior]

I'm seeking arrangement with one of these 18 yr old online sex entrepreneurs who's pulling in a million before they're 19. I'll provide the father figure companionship, intellectual stimulation and all the sex they demand, within reason, in return for a slice of the pie. Or maybe Ill handle the pie for them.  I don't do linens though. 

[Jaroslav]

On 3/1/2023 at 5:57 PM, Unicorn said:

reality is that it's just legal sophistry, IMHO.

My opinion too. So you’ve got company! 

[pubic_assistance]

10 hours ago, Jaroslav said:

My opinion too. So you’ve got company! 

It's the same kind of legal dance that marijuana dispensaries play.

"It's for medicinal purposes only" . 😉

We all know, half the customers are there to get high, but you MUST stay within the legal narrative in your marketing.

[Jaroslav]

2 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

It's the same kind of legal dance that marijuana dispensaries play.

"It's for medicinal purposes only" . 😉

We all know, half the customers are there to get high, but you MUST stay within the legal narrative in your marketing.

Unless, of course, you live in any number of states where recreational marijuana is legal. Then all of a sudden that pretense is dropped. So really we know what’s up. So when we’re talking among ourselves, let’s not circumlocute. Just say it. I don’t know that anyone here, while writing in this forum, is compelled to keep up a legal charade.

[pubic_assistance]

3 hours ago, Jaroslav said:

So when we’re talking among ourselves, let’s not circumlocute. Just say it. I don’t know that anyone here, while writing in this forum, is compelled to keep up a legal charade.

Well....lets not get confused here.

This is a PUBLIC forum. We are NOT "talking amongst ourselves" privately.

Therefore a line of discretion is still appreciated where these guys are clearly marketing a euphemistic "relationship". 

If they were openly selling their ass, they'd be on Rent.men. But Seeking makes their financial goals seem a little more discreet and within the law.

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by pubic_assistance
edit

[Jaroslav]

You can call the ocean the sky all you want and we’ll all know it’s still the ocean—and think you’re delusional for believing it.

People can say whatever they want. We all know what’s going on. The circumlocution just makes me roll my eyes. “Okay, honey. If you say so.”

[pubic_assistance]

On 3/4/2023 at 7:56 PM, Jaroslav said:

You can call the ocean the sky all you want and we’ll all know it’s still the ocean—and think you’re delusional for believing it.

People can say whatever they want. We all know what’s going on. The circumlocution just makes me roll my eyes. “Okay, honey. If you say so.”

Obviously we all know what's going on.

You seem to have completely missed the point of the legal ramifications for both hosting site and members.

[Jaroslav]

2 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Obviously we all know what's going on.

You seem to have completely missed the point of the legal ramifications for both hosting site and members.

I didn’t. And those who would be out to get us don’t either. Because…obviously we all know what’s going on.

If an officer pulls you over and says you’re going 15 mph over the speed limit, you might say you’re not speeding, you’re going with the flow of traffic, but the fact is we all know you’re over the limit no matter what you say.

[pubic_assistance]

2 hours ago, Jaroslav said:

If an officer pulls you over and says you’re going 15 mph over the speed limit, you might say you’re not speeding, you’re going with the flow of traffic, but the fact is we all know you’re over the limit no matter what you say.

Well, that is true.

But it has nothing to do with prostitution. There isn't a speedometer for fucking for money. So your only Achilles heel will be documenting the transaction through written conversation that can be sourced.

Edited April 5, 2023 by pubic_assistance

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Jaroslav said:

...If an officer pulls you over and says you’re going 15 mph over the speed limit, you might say you’re not speeding, you’re going with the flow of traffic, but the fact is we all know you’re over the limit no matter what you say.

Unless the speed limit is 55 or higher, in California going over the speed limit isn't in and of itself illegal. 

[Jaroslav]

Not the point, folks.

The point is that a relationship that is typical in the client-provider relationship, even if friendly, isn’t friendship. Even if there are exceptions (“exception to the rule” exists as an expression for a reason), they’re exceptions, not the norm.

Escorts-client relationships aren’t as a general rule friendships.

Believe that they are at your own risk of emotional distress. Maybe you’ll win the psychological roulette. I’m not spinning the cylinder.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Jaroslav said:

...Believe that they are at your own risk of emotional distress. Maybe you’ll win the psychological roulette. I’m not spinning the cylinder.

...

I feel a song coming on...

 

[pubic_assistance]

10 hours ago, Jaroslav said:

The point is that a relationship that is typical in the client-provider relationship, even if friendly, isn’t friendship.

You are assuming that everyone who likes to be taken care of is a prostitute.

There are many people who never adjust to the responsibilities of being an adult, who seek out older partners to take care of the rent in exchange for sex. Some will be leeches but there are people who genuinely LIKE their sugar daddy ( or mommy ).

To insist this is always purely transactional is rather pessimistic.

[Jaroslav]

When you say “in exchange” it means it’s a transaction.

Why is it so bad to admit that it’s a transaction? I don’t have a problem with that, nor do I see it as pessimistic or optimistic. It’s facts. Reality. Not good or bad. Just is.

Akin to saying someone’s a cocksucker. Why is that an insult? I enjoying a good cocksucker 😜 

But still, if something is done “in exchange” for something, whatever the case, it’s a transaction. If you’d do it, or someone else would do it for the simple reason they like/love you, that’s different than “I get housing out of this if I have sex with this guy.” Again, not anything wrong with that. But it is a transaction.

I for one would love that kind of transactional relationship with a guy. But it’d important for me to always remember as long as that’s the basis of the relationship, if, say for some reason I couldn’t provide the housing anymore or he wanted to move on because he could provide for himself now, then the relationship would end, at least under that arrangement. And that too is okay.

But a transactional relationship (a relationship that has as a major component something done “in exchange” for something, especially explicitly) is one that is inherently different than a friendship.

I for my part don’t need to be “friends” with every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Nor do I want to be. 

[pubic_assistance]

4 minutes ago, Jaroslav said:

But a transactional relationship (a relationship that has as a major component something done “in exchange” for something, especially explicitly) is one that is inherently different than a friendship.

Is it  ?

or is the exchange just a little more obvious when its financial ?

[Jaroslav]

2 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Is it  ?

or is the exchange just a little more obvious when its financial ?

It is.

A means of trade need not be currency. cf. Bartering is a good example.

Again…transactional relationships aren’t bad. But they’re transactional – something for something. Not a bad thing. Let’s just be honest about it.

[pubic_assistance]

2 hours ago, Jaroslav said:

Let’s just be honest about it.

All relationships involve someone GETTING something and the other person GIVING something and vice-versa.

That's the definition of a human relationship.

If someone has their rent paid, and other person is offering sex, the person giving sex is getting security and the person giving rent money is getting satisfaction.

If this is an ongoing thing, where the two parties are reliant on one another to take care of their end of the deal and this not a once in a while transaction, it's a kind of relationship, not just a transaction.

Honest.

 

[Jaroslav]

I really don’t know what you’re arguing. Or why.

The nature is a transactional relationship. Sure – all human interaction is transactional if you argue to the extreme, but living with someone in exchange for sex is a lot more extreme than an infant relying on a parent to care for them, although the infant is getting security and the parent (hopefully) satisfaction. Someone who “pays” someone to provide for them with sex is still paying, just not with currency. The nature of that arrangement, and that transaction, ends if one or both parties decide to terminate it. If a parent chose to terminate the “transaction” with their infant it would be whole lot different than a sugar daddy terminating a live-in relationship with a boy. How that’s not a clear distinction I don’t quite understand.

Whatever the case, I’m not convinced and won’t be convinced that a transactional, quid pro quo relationship, no matter the means of transaction, between a provider and a client is a friendship unless the nature of the transaction changed. Sure. Friends receive mutual satisfaction from their friends, but until a client and an provider move on to that level, I simply refuse to see it as something other than business. Even if you genuinely like each other. I don’t need to be everyone’s friend. The thing about providers and clients is that the kind of activity shared together is often overlapped with friends and more-than-friends. So it’s important to keep in mind what is actually happening to protect yourself from disappointment or emotional entanglement.

People are complex. You can have a friendly relationship with someone you do business with and not be friends. It’s okay in fact.

I really have nothing more to say about this because I feel I’ve said it all and I’m starting to repeat myself.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Jaroslav

[pubic_assistance]

21 minutes ago, Jaroslav said:

I really don’t know what you’re arguing. Or why.

You posted a question on a forum.

I am not "arguing" I am answering your question about how a transactional relationship can be and sometimes IS more than just the transaction.

If you don't want to hear people's opinions then why did you ask ?

Perhaps you should change your heading to a statement of opinion instead of a question since you're not interested in anything but making your own point heard.

Edited April 5, 2023 by pubic_assistance

[Jaroslav]

My ORIGINAL question had nothing to do with friendship. The conversation went that way over the course of the thread. The first poster to speak of “friend(ly)” was @Unicorn. My question was about who’s providing services to whom in, what I clearly assumed wrongly for the sake of generality, are the most common circumstances. Because we have to point to exceptions to the rule, we have to have such a broad understanding as to be meaningless. Got it  👍🏻 

Either way, thanks for telling me what I’m interested in. I needed that clarification what’s going on in my own mind and I’m glad you, of all possible folks, could step up and tell me what I’m interested in. Was that a free estimate or do I owe you for that transaction, dear concerned friend? I can call you friend, right? Since this is a transaction, a human interaction?

Edited April 5, 2023 by Jaroslav

[RadioRob]

Topic locked at OP request.