How much does it cost to be a sugar daddy?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Simon Suraci said:

...I hope you know I have nothing against you or your current relationship and make no judgments about it...

No problem. I didn't take it personally. I hope you didn't take my response personally, either. My point was simply that if someone asks "Say you wanted to take an escort off the market and have him be your personal boytoy. What would be an appropriate monthly stipend for this arrangement? What are the additional costs besides the monthly stipend?", then simply saying you wouldn't do it under any circumstances doesn't help that poster. It just comes off as judgmental. Now if you'd responded by saying "Well, I had an arrangement, which was thus: XXXX. It worked out so badly, that I'd never consider it again," at least that would be tangentially on the subject. Fortunately, a number of posters have given what I'd consider helpful responses, so hopefully he has information he can contemplate. 

[Archangel]

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.

[+ Tygerscent]

Less than a husband… 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Archangel said:

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.

A live in, full time sugar baby is available for soooooo much more than just sex.  I think your initial premise is incorrect and you have some misconceived notions about how they work.

When I have had live ins, they weren’t off the market.  I had certain requests, but none of them were to only have eyes for me.  I never felt entitled to anything, though MOST of the requests were met with a conscientious enthusiasm.  No, $100,000 a year isn’t worth giving up what makes you you.  

 

[Rod Hagen]

14 hours ago, Archangel said:

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?

 

Ok, wise-ass:  If you think escorting et al is so easy, go do it, then report back.   We'll be here

Edited July 26, 2023 by Rod Hagen

[Archangel]

1 hour ago, Rod Hagen said:

Ok, wise-ass:  If you think escorting et al is so easy, go do it, then report back.   We'll be here

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. 

[+ FrankR]

52 minutes ago, Archangel said:

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. 

I am not sure where you get the “distrust” perspective from. If your plan in life is to only be intimate with people you trust its gonna be a hard, likely celibate, life. Nor do I get why “exclusivity” comes up. Sugaring clears the way for access, not exclusivity. 🤔

[Archangel]

9 minutes ago, FrankR said:

I am not sure where you get the “distrust” perspective from. If your plan in life is to only be intimate with people you trust its gonna be a hard, likely celibate, life. Nor do I get why “exclusivity” comes up. Sugaring clears the way for access, not exclusivity. 🤔

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.

[Thelatin]

On 7/24/2023 at 7:05 AM, Coolwave35 said:

 I was personally hurt and offended when my vacation mate wanted to have breakfast alone on the last day. I crumbled. I’ll never forget it.

Been there - sitting alone by the pool wondering WTF.   Learning curve of me not needing to be a needy bastard.  He now has his own room and car at my home and comes and goes as he pleases.

[Archangel]

6 hours ago, Thelatin said:

Been there - sitting alone by the pool wondering WTF.   Learning curve of me not needing to be a needy bastard.  He now has his own room and car at my home and comes and goes as he pleases.

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

[Newtdad]

On 7/24/2023 at 7:35 PM, Coolwave35 said:

I wasn’t rich yet. I was fortunate that he was reasonable and settled for 25%, the dog and my favorite property instead of the 50 he could have fought for. 

In the beginning, Did the two of you know you had a high potential to becoming rich (eg, someone who's in law school with the potential of becoming rich)?

[Thelatin]

19 hours ago, Archangel said:

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

It’s become more than that.  There is the “escorting time” and then there is the rest of the time together.   I’ve learned it’s best not to be “needy”.  Nice just having someone around off the clock. 

[Archangel]

1 hour ago, Thelatin said:

It’s become more than that.  There is the “escorting time” and then there is the rest of the time together.   I’ve learned it’s best not to be “needy”.  Nice just having someone around off the clock. 

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. 

[Archangel]

On 7/25/2023 at 7:33 PM, Unicorn said:

Say you wanted to take an escort off the market

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!

[Guest]

On 7/26/2023 at 2:37 PM, Thelatin said:

Learning curve of me not needing to be a needy bastard.

Yup!  No one teaches you how to hire. It’s a constant learning curve. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, newdad said:

In the beginning, Did the two of you know you had a high potential to becoming rich (eg, someone who's in law school with the potential of becoming rich)?

I don’t know how to answer this question without coming across as more arrogant or pretentious than I usually do so I’m just gunna say, that for me, not being wealthy was never an option.  When I’d say that to him he’d laugh dismissively until it happened. 

[Archangel]

On 7/25/2023 at 11:22 PM, Coolwave35 said:

A live in, full time sugar baby is available for soooooo much more than just sex.

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.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Archangel said:

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.

When I read your use of “exclusive” I interpret it as being possessive. I am rallying against the possessiveness. I think you’re saying a guy on the payroll shouldn’t be on anyone else’s. Is that what you’re asking?  

[+ azdr0710]

A smart and experienced sugar daddy will not be possessive or even appear to be that way. Presumably, both parties know what is expected and that won't even be an issue.

An "exclusive" sugar daddy/baby relationship, to me, means nothing more than the sugar baby sees no one else. Nothing to do with possessiveness. 

[Archangel]

19 hours ago, azdr0710 said:

An "exclusive" sugar daddy/baby relationship, to me, means nothing more than the sugar baby sees no one else. Nothing to do with possessiveness. 

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.

[Archangel]

19 hours ago, Coolwave35 said:

When I read your use of “exclusive” I interpret it as being possessive. I am rallying against the possessiveness. I think you’re saying a guy on the payroll shouldn’t be on anyone else’s. Is that what you’re asking?  

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.

 

[Archangel]

$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.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Archangel

[Guest]

I hear you and I understand a lot of it. One of the tenements to me of a sugar relationship is physical attraction of the daddy to the baby, often times not reciprocated. I wouldn’t feel comfortable asking someone to give up that sexual passion. I can agree that if I’m paying you that good, I should be the only one you’re taking money from. But I wouldn’t ever put the restriction that I’m the only one you’re intimate with. That’s a leap too far for me. 

[Guest]

Last night, we saw the movie Chris and Don: A Love Story, a documentary on the over 30-year relationship between Christopher Isherwood and Don Bachardy, who was 30 years his junior. The relationship lasted until Isherwood's death. Don, now 89, is still alive. They seemed to have a similar arrangement as that of my beau and I. Occasional trysts were OK, but not dating others (repeat encounters). That arrangement seemed to be healthy enough to last. My man's previous SD was, as he puts it "100% different" from myself. The man, who, due to nefarious financial engagements, was far wealthier than myself, showered him with private jet trips, front-row tickets and meetings with famous musical artists, and lavish spending sprees. He was also possessive as fuck, and wouldn't let my beau out of his sight, not even for a haircut (but the SD was unfaithful himself). That SD is now an inmate in a federal penitentiary. I told my fiance I can't provide him with that lavish lifestyle, but can promise him these things: honesty, reliability, and respect. Needless to say, my man compares the two relationships as "night and day." 

Edited July 29, 2023 by Unicorn

[BSR]

4 hours ago, Unicorn said:

He was also possessive as fuck, and wouldn't let my beau out of his sight, not even for a haircut

Who could endure such a psycho control freak?

Lemme guess, zero "severance package."  The sugardaddy spent money like a rock star as long as sugarbaby was under his thumb, but hyperposessive types make sure SB is penniless once it's over.