My Story As A Sugar Baby

[vivianward]

Originally Posted by TheIdesOfMarch

Don't mind me asking a question vivianward, in your experience is there a market for male sugarboys in Singapore? Do you think the same criteria applies for them too and how should one go about being one if they want to?

No problem.

I think the market is really small for sugarboys. There are some "duck shops" around and I've heard of guys getting showered with ALOT of money there. The guys are REALLY good looking though.

Compared to men, women are much more emotional. We are wired to yearn for a man to take care of us. So unless you're really really a looker and a sex god, then perhaps you will be able to find one.

I know it is unfair, but personally I feel that it is just super weird for a guy to want a lady to take care of him financially.

[TheIdesOfMarch]

Originally Posted by vivianward

No problem.

I think the market is really small for sugarboys. There are some "duck shops" around and I've heard of guys getting showered with ALOT of money there. The guys are REALLY good looking though.

Compared to men, women are much more emotional. We are wired to yearn for a man to take care of us. So unless you're really really a looker and a sex god, then perhaps you will be able to find one.

I know it is unfair, but personally I feel that it is just super weird for a guy to want a lady to take care of him financially.

If it is hardwired into women to yearn for males to take care of them and provide for them instead of the other way around, what does that say about feminism or gender equality then?

Leaving that quibble aside, I asked you that question personally because I myself am interested in being a sugarboy. Well, I can't say money is my prime motivator; I'm not really seeking to date now and hence I wouldn't mind providing paid companionship or escorting services, social or otherwise for women who desire someone on their arm for an occasion or two.

[vivianward]

Originally Posted by TheIdesOfMarch

If it is hardwired into women to yearn for males to take care of them and provide for them instead of the other way around, what does that say about feminism or gender equality then?

Leaving that quibble aside, I asked you that question personally because I myself am interested in being a sugarboy. Well, I can't say money is my prime motivator; I'm not really seeking to date now and hence I wouldn't mind providing paid companionship or escorting services, social or otherwise for women who desire someone on their arm for an occasion or two.

Lol I knew this gender equality would come. It is just my personal opinion. Just like how many would think being an SB aka "selling body" is something very shameful.

Women generally like men to be the ones supporting them, men can choose not to do that, but once they seek "financial" support from the women, it becomes weird. And very few women would be attracted by that. Unless you're lucky and find a really wealthy single/lonely married woman. I would have to say, more often than not, even with their massive wealth, they would still prefer to be "taken care of" emotionally. Not someone who "fakes" it for their money. And it is even more impossible that they would just want sex.

All that I have said are not meant to offend you. It is truly how a woman thinks. We don't have "small heads" to think. Just like how much I may like a potential SD, if he does not have cash to burn on me, it means nothing. I wouldn't date him just because I truly like him. UNLESS he is single and available and sincerely wishes to be in a normal relationship with me, then perhaps yes. But nah...... most are married.

[bradplay2018]

Originally Posted by vivianward

Lol I knew this gender equality would come. It is just my personal opinion. Just like how many would think being an SB aka "selling body" is something very shameful.

Women generally like men to be the ones supporting them, men can choose not to do that, but once they seek "financial" support from the women, it becomes weird. And very few women would be attracted by that. Unless you're lucky and find a really wealthy single/lonely married woman. I would have to say, more often than not, even with their massive wealth, they would still prefer to be "taken care of" emotionally. Not someone who "fakes" it for their money. And it is even more impossible that they would just want sex.

All that I have said are not meant to offend you. It is truly how a woman thinks. We don't have "small heads" to think. Just like how much I may like a potential SD, if he does not have cash to burn on me, it means nothing. I wouldn't date him just because I truly like him. UNLESS he is single and available and sincerely wishes to be in a normal relationship with me, then perhaps yes. But nah...... most are married.

I agree with what you said and its the truth facts.

I do know of model guys who married to older and not so pleasant looking but wealthy woman.

Sugar boy definitely is a smaller market than sugar baby.

Traditional and society thinking is that men should be the one paying as a form of gentlemen and dominance.

I wont want a lady to pay for my meal so i pick the bill everytime.

[peanodood1337]

Originally Posted by TheIdesOfMarch

If it is hardwired into women to yearn for males to take care of them and provide for them instead of the other way around, what does that say about feminism or gender equality then?

Here is your Evolutionary Biology 101 - in the animal kingdom, there are "seekers" and "choosers" in every species. "Choosers" tend to be the ones with a larger physical investment when it comes to reproduction. They are the ones who have to gestate and bear the offspring, and in the process becoming weak and vulnerable during this time period.

"Seekers" on the other hand, would have to woo the "choosers" to convince the latter that they are strong enough to take care of both child-bearer and young. You see this across the board - male peacocks strutting their stuff, male weaver birds building intricate nests to attract mates, male hippos/lions/seals etc. fighting for dominance etc. etc. etc.

For humans, males tend to be the "seekers", and human females the "choosers". To put it in a purely biological sense, women have to gestate a parasite siphoning off their bodily nutrients for 9 to 11 months. Unconsciously or otherwise, female humans are thusly "hardwired" to choose a mate based on his ability to take care of her during this time period. This usually translate into wealth or influence in our society.

The reverse can be seen in the case of seahorses. Female seahorses deposit their eggs into the male seahorses' pouches, whence the latter would have to gestate, bear, and subsequently care for the young. Consequentially, female seahorses in the wild would compete with other females for the right to "impregnate" the male seahorses.

So in answer to your question, this sort "biological hardwiring" has nothing to do gender equality. It is easy to get confused by the zeitgeist of blind femi-nazism. In truth, gender equality is about meritocracy, leveling the playing fields and action against discrimination. Examples of relevant issues are equal pay for the same jobs, the right to vote, the elimination of barriers-of-entry based on gender. Don't conflate women's tendencies to look for someone who can look after them with gender inequality. These are separate issues.

[vivianward]

Originally Posted by bradplay2018

I agree with what you said and its the truth facts.

I do know of model guys who married to older and not so pleasant looking but wealthy woman.

Sugar boy definitely is a smaller market than sugar baby.

Traditional and society thinking is that men should be the one paying as a form of gentlemen and dominance.

I wont want a lady to pay for my meal so i pick the bill everytime.

Hi Brad Long time no see.

Some traditions cannot be changed. It takes a certain character of a woman to be able to withstand a man who wants to get paid for companionship. Really really very rare.

I don't have issues with guys who wants to go on dutch, I will have an issue if that girl with him is me Hahaha so contradicting.

[bradplay2018]

Originally Posted by peanodood1337

Here is your Evolutionary Biology 101 - in the animal kingdom, there are "seekers" and "choosers" in every species. "Choosers" tend to be the ones with a larger physical investment when it comes to reproduction. They are the ones who have to gestate and bear the offspring, and in the process becoming weak and vulnerable during this time period.

"Seekers" on the other hand, would have to woo the "choosers" to convince the latter that they are strong enough to take care of both child-bearer and young. You see this across the board - male peacocks strutting their stuff, male weaver birds building intricate nests to attract mates, male hippos/lions/seals etc. fighting for dominance etc. etc. etc.

For humans, males tend to be the "seekers", and human females the "choosers". To put it in a purely biological sense, women have to gestate a parasite siphoning off their bodily nutrients for 9 to 11 months. Unconsciously or otherwise, female humans are thusly "hardwired" to choose a mate based on his ability to take care of her during this time period. This usually translate into wealth or influence in our society.

The reverse can be seen in the case of seahorses. Female seahorses deposit their eggs into the male seahorses' pouches, whence the latter would have to gestate, bear, and subsequently care for the young. Consequentially, female seahorses in the wild would compete with other females for the right to "impregnate" the male seahorses.

So in answer to your question, this sort "biological hardwiring" has nothing to do gender equality. It is easy to get confused by the zeitgeist of blind femi-nazism. In truth, gender equality is about meritocracy, leveling the playing fields and action against discrimination. Examples of relevant issues are equal pay for the same jobs, the right to vote, the elimination of barriers-of-entry based on gender. Don't conflate women's tendencies to look for someone who can look after them with gender inequality. These are separate issues.

Well said brother, its sort of summarize the concept of Male being the bread winner for majority of the population.

Some male are weaker and they need female to take care, but definitely not me, my ego and pride won't accept such arrangement.

The world is full of different type of people

[peanodood1337]

Originally Posted by bradplay2018

Well said brother, its sort of summarize the concept of Male being the bread winner for majority of the population.

Some male are weaker and they need female to take care, but definitely not me, my ego and pride won't accept such arrangement.

The world is full of different type of people

Amen to that brother.

A long time ago when I was a kid, I noticed that my dad was always paying for meals when we were dining outside. Both parents were working, so its not as if my mom doesn't have any money. Curious, I asked him "Why is papa always paying? Why mama never pay one?"

My dad replied that boys should always pay - boys must take care of girls - that's the way it is. "Next time you also must pay" he joked.

That lesson stuck with me. And years later, when I started dating, I've always picked up the tab. Cos "boys must take care of girls".

That's why I could never appreciate why some guys are so willing to proverbially "eat soft rice". It just feels wrong to me.

[justl00king]

Originally Posted by peanodood1337

That lesson stuck with me. And years later, when I started dating, I've always picked up the tab. Cos "boys must take care of girls".

That's why I could never appreciate why some guys are so willing to proverbially "eat soft rice". It just feels wrong to me.

For dating guys should always pick up the tab, thats the gentlemanly thing to do

Guys eat soft rice feels wrong, does it feel right for gals to get money from guys for sex?

[TheIdesOfMarch]

I'm sorry, but all this talk about equality, or about gender roles and how men are providers whilst women are receivers, just strikes me as extremely misogynistic and unfair.

Gender equality means that a guy should feel equally comfortable with eating soft rice if possible, as a woman. And that it shouldn't just be a guy who gets to earn big bucks in society to pay for women he loves and marries and support them and his family. A woman is equally capable too.

Frankly a lot of the misogynistic white knights here disgust me.

[peanodood1337]

Originally Posted by TheIdesOfMarch

I'm sorry, but all this talk about equality, or about gender roles and how men are providers whilst women are receivers, just strikes me as extremely misogynistic and unfair.

Gender equality means that a guy should feel equally comfortable with eating soft rice if possible, as a woman. And that it shouldn't just be a guy who gets to earn big bucks in society to pay for women he loves and marries and support them and his family. A woman is equally capable too.

Frankly a lot of the misogynistic white knights here disgust me.

I'm sorry but you seem to be missing the point. I thought I explained biological drives in a detailed enough manner. Furthermore, to avoid any possible misunderstandings about my stance, I elaborated that gender inequalities have more to do with leveling the playing field rather than personal inclinations. Here is the specific section bolded for the ease of your perusal:

Originally Posted by peanodood1337

In truth, gender equality is about meritocracy, leveling the playing fields and action against discrimination. Examples of relevant issues are equal pay for the same jobs, the right to vote, the elimination of barriers-of-entry based on gender.Don't conflate women's tendencies to look for someone who can look after them with gender inequality. These are separate issues.

It is indeed your prerogative to "eat soft rice" if that is your wish. But pulling the gender inequality card to justify your laziness is just plain disrespectful to the centuries of unfair treatment women had to endure over the ages.

Speaking of things that we find disgusting, I find it disgusting that you claimed to be saving up for your Masters, to the extent that you have to sell your body in the forum, but appear to be frivolously frittering money away on hookers in Geylang:

Originally Posted by TheIdesOfMarch

Definitely have one girl just like that for you. L8H45G93 is your girl. Tried and tested, you should give her a shot!

Heh. I just did today too.

Originally Posted by TheIdesOfMarch

I always got $50 for 30 mins at Thai houses. Sure they write 50/25 on the walls but in reality there is always +5 minutes at the end for the client and the girl to shower and dress up before he leave and she preps the room for the next customer.

Originally Posted by TheIdesOfMarch

Paying $300 for any LB in SG is a rip off price. Please don't spoil market for us can? Got one LB at RELC International she is pricing between $150 to $250 depending on your negotiation skills.

These are all recent posts. And that's just 3 of them. From your post history, it seems your whoremonging activities go back years. How many $50s would you have saved by now? Shouldn't all that money go into your studies instead?

Originally Posted by TheIdesOfMarch

Am a fresh overseas uni graduate and currently saving up money for my Masters overseas this coming September

"Saving up money" my ass. I did not call you out on your nonsense in your thread because I thought, hey - live and let live ya? Not gonna wreck a bro's game. But you had to come in here and be all judgmental to us. (Yep, I happen to know Vivian in real life. Yep, I've gotten her permission to say this.)

Why does a guy who supposedly is such a good catch, with shit-loads of xp in sex parties, need to waste money on cheap Geylang hookers? The way you're selling yourself, one would have imagined there's a queue lining up at your doorstep... oh wait. They aren't. That's why you have to do your thread bumps by yourself. LOL. You sure are a sad little wanker aren't you?

Now piss off back to your pathetic thread will you? Or do you want me to bring the argument over to your ass-selling thread for all your prospective sugar-mommies to see? I wonder what they will think if they realize they are indirectly funding your CCAs in Geylang.

[siam66]

Smell of gunpowder here ??? ... lol ...

[bradplay2018]

Originally Posted by TheIdesOfMarch

I'm sorry, but all this talk about equality, or about gender roles and how men are providers whilst women are receivers, just strikes me as extremely misogynistic and unfair.

Gender equality means that a guy should feel equally comfortable with eating soft rice if possible, as a woman. And that it shouldn't just be a guy who gets to earn big bucks in society to pay for women he loves and marries and support them and his family. A woman is equally capable too.

Frankly a lot of the misogynistic white knights here disgust me.

Lol why are we prejudice against woman? To be frank, just follow your heart. My heart tell me I should always treat a woman and not a woman treat me.

If your heart tell you to be eat soft rice and beg woman for money then go be it.

Be it we disgust you or not , you actions also disgust me by the way for want to be sugar boy. White knights

[TheIdesOfMarch]

Wow. So many defenders of the sugar babies. I surrender I surrender can?? Wowww I wonder how many of you are gonna get laid tonight for all your high and mighty words here.

What I do in my personal life is my business. What I call out as hypocrisy is my judgement. I have my own savings and work now and frankly the $50s I spend at GL every month would not even work out to a single night's entertainment cost of going to a club in Singapore. We all want more money don't we? I'm blatantly honest about that.

So you know what? Judge away, flame away, it's not like it affects me. I'm perfectly happy that my thread isn't attracting trollers compared to the multitude of other similar threads here in the forum. If you think engaging in paid escorting services be it for sex or sugaring as the giving party somehow makes you a different class of man from a guy who wouldn't mind being a male SB or social Escort, again that's up to you. But frankly, you're as shitty as the male SBs you deride here and you show your innate chauvinistic tendencies about how you can buy what passes as fake public or personal private love for a certain price per hour. You're no better than me going to GL once or twice a month because I rather go there than play the hookup scene or date in SG.

Oh and one more thing. Just because you know someone in this thread doesn't suddenly give you some moral or intellectual right to speak on behalf of them and claim their "approval" for your poison pen writing here. If someone has something to say to me, they should not need to try and justify it by saying that "my words were pre approved by someone else here".

So you know what? This is my final word on this, take it leave it up to you. I'm very mercenary in my mindset. I'm not begging for money. I'm not commenting or spamming every single female user or ever single thread trying to advertise myself. I've had a few responses in private so far and we'll see how thing so. Then again I don't need to report everything to you guys here just to try and make a point.

[prettymannequin]

Well that escalated quickly and I wasn't around to watch dammit.