Feb 08
I was talking to a girl last night, and she told me she was headed out to a pub with a guy. She said it wasn’t a date, and that she was single. Now here’s where it gets interesting. The guy had sent her a dozen red roses at work that day, and she sleeps with him regularly. Why? Well, apparently he does quite well for himself, buys lots of stuff for her and treats her well. I’m guessing he thinks they are in a relationship. She’s early twenties, he’s mid thirties. Basically she’s sleeping with this guy for the monetary perks. Is she a prostitute/escort? Does it matter if the guy doesn’t know her side of things?
I’ve put a poll over to the right —>Â
Loading ...
February 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Isn’t prostitution a ((( transaction ))) between the john and a prostitute? If the guy doesn’t consider himself a john and thinks it’s a relationship, then no she’s not a prostitute. That also just makes him a sugar daddy. What do you guys think??
Josh says: Hmm. But does a sugar-daddy assume the “relationship” is exclusive?
February 13th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
yeah it sounds like a case of gold diggin hooker to me!
February 16th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
hahahaha OHHHH SHes got him by the D*ck hahaha what a gold diggin momma !!!! poor guy
February 17th, 2008 at 12:38 am
I’m the girl in in the story, I am not a prostitute. Its a sugar daddie, sugar babe relationship. We have an “understanding”. The problem lies here….he has taken the “relationship” a little more surious then the “understanding” we have. Whereas I have done the exact opposite and stuck strickly to the “understanding”. Theres no emotional connection. Don’t get me wrong I would miss his money if he disappeared tomorrow…. lol.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Re: “that girl” –> SLUT!
February 19th, 2008 at 2:21 am
I like to give men credit for not being stupid. This man cannot truly believe that he is in a relationship. Even from this short description of the nature of the union I KNOW they are not. Sounds like this isn’t even dating…its just an an exchange of company for goods.
Now, from what I’ve read (and the response from said “prostitute”) it sounds like they agreed on the terms of this association from the beginning, and perhaps now he is a little “confused” with his emotions. This is unfortunate, but typical of these arrangements.
Most women aren’t sluts. Most men aren’t dorks. But we are all bound by the need for affection and the propensity to be “drawn in” no matter how stupid or pointless the whole arrangement is. Very few of us can knock boots repeatedly with one person, and effectively squelch down the human feelings that begin to transpire.
And I believe that this dude knows this, but likes what he is getting enough to fool himself into believing its more. He knows what answer he would get if he asked the burning question “are we together?”. In fact I’m sure somewhere inside he believes if he just gives her a bit more, one day she won’t tell him on the phone that she’s met the man of her dreams, this was just a way to pass the time and didn’t he remember they agreed just to be “friends with benefits?”.
So let’s not cry foul and burn the witch at the stake y’all. We’re all adults here, no? Simple f*cks are simple f*cks, so lets not complicate them with roses and nights out. And if you’re gonna be a shugga daddy, you best be attached so you have equal stake to lose. Helps keep those pesky emotions in check.
PS: And boys…if you want someone more than sexually and they don’t want you back unless you have a Gold Card, accept it as it is, or go find a girl who’s into you. I know there’s one out there.
Josh says: I think this is the most thoughtful comment on my blog to date. Thank-you.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Looks like some girls will give it up for nothin much. Havent you ever heard “why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?” Dont you ever want a monogamous loving caring relationship with a Man you can come home to and snuggle in the mornings?
(Did I happen to find the only good guy out there????)