The Sugar Baby Culture - A Revelation

[Shemp]

... the only reason some people are able to live the hedonistic lifestyle you advocate is that they are sponging off other high-functioning people living the lifestyle you oppose, right? If every intelligent man woke up tomorrow morning agreeing with you then civilisation would collapse immediately....

Not so much "agreeing with" as "emulating", since men with families with young children might agree that CE has a better life but not be willing to emulate him and abandon their existing families. Otherwise, you are basically correct: not everyone can be an idle, parasitic drone whose only aim to be as happy as long as possible while waiting to die.

Personally, I felt called to the drone lifestyle from a very early age. I saw myself as a natural aristocrat who shouldn't have to ever work for money and who deserved a pension from the rest of society just because of gracing the universe with my existence, and I still feel that way. My sense of entitlement is unjustified and monstrous, but that's the way I am. Because society did not acknowledge my claim to deserve a fat pension starting at age 18, I was forced to work. Luckily, I only had to do this about 15 years (including 4 years at university) before managing to accumulate enough to provide my own pension.

I am happy that most men (and women) are NOT like me, precisely because I know only a small percent of people can be drones. And I regard the flourishing of the sugar baby lifestyle as a bad sign of something deeply wrong with our society, just as the existence of men with my sense of entitlement is a bad sign, but given that I am what I am, I am personally happy to take advantage of the sugar baby trend as well as other forms of modern degeneracy.

[Cornfed]

Not so much "agreeing with" as "emulating", since men with families with young children might agree that CE has a better life but not be willing to emulate him and abandon their existing families. Otherwise, you are basically correct: not everyone can be an idle, parasitic drone whose only aim to be as happy as long as possible while waiting to die. ke advantage of the sugar baby trend as well as other forms of modern degeneracy.

Sigh, this is why we need religion, this is why we need to think of life as a continuum, this is why we need to think of something beyond our skin and bones.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I hope not to disappoint you, but I have been thinking about this long before I joined this forum and long before this thread (or the previous ones, where our discussion used far more toxic language).

Not disappointed at all. It is clear to see how the realizations affect you from just the volume and nature of your posts. You are bothered by things with which you agree but don't at all want to agree. The constant posts tend to mean you are hoping to read a "smoking gun" comment to which you can say, "Ah ha!, there is something that I find morally repugnant enough to purge this thinking from my brain!" But that smoking gun will never come....

[hypermak]

If you think a man's higher purpose is family, you have set your sights far too low. Maybe if I was a villager 500 years ago, perhaps that would be a worthy life purpose. Some of us want to purchase shares of certain sports teams. Some of us want to purchase fractional ownership of airplanes to travel more easily. Some of us want to fund causes that appeal to us. Some of us want to assist talented young men to reach similar heights. Some of us want to accumulate positions in hedge funds and private equity. Don't be so narrow-minded to think that your family life ambition is somehow more better or more moral than other men's choices because I can tell you it is not. Again, married men can be toxic, abusive, lazy wastes of time
and and unmarried can be ubermenscher like myself.

OK, but how is accumulating wealth and investing in funds or airplanes not compatible with having a family? Even helping other men achieve financial success is a selfless act, one that goes beyond yourself and your "here and now". Maybe my brain is wired differently from yours, but I simply cannot conceive a life that is entirely self-centered. The higher purpose of men, in fact all of biological beings on this planet, is to collaborate and prosper as a collective, as an ecosystem.

If a marriage-free lifestyle represents "transient sexual encounters and solitary hobbies," think again. Siring babies with a woman is something any untalented villager can do. Doing what you want, how you want, when you want is the stuff of worldy-wise, sigma (or alpha) men who control their international environments and circumstances. To be living in a home with a wife and child is akin to living death for men who acquire, control, and expand their wealth domain.

From my standpoint, each dollar I own is like a little worker. Each of them has a duty to pay me 10 to 20 cents every year just for the privilege of being owned by me. I manage them, choose which jobs they take, negotiate their terms, and protect them from exploitation or theft by fraud.

The fact that the expansion of these workers enables me to do and control more and more is the realization of my wildest dreams as a child. The world is my literally my neighborhood, and I can calls the shots anywhere by summoning a few of my workers to put my will into action.

Ceding such awesome power and influence in favor of a government-empowered female supervisor (third worlder or not) is a non-starter. If you want women to respect you deeply in this day and age of feminism, you MUST retain the ultimate power to shoo them away, or leave them. Marriage deprives you of that ability under penalty of law and financial ruin.

I agree with you on investment and I can tell you I, too, have some of my own savings invested in funds managed by asset managers I met while I was in London. Once again, your idea of a woman as a "female supervisor" is an exxageration. If you choose carefully you won't find yourself in the situation of living under another woman's thumb.

As for the responsibility that comes with having to work 5 days a week and swallow quite a bit of shit to support your family, it's the sacrifice I was talking about on my earlier reply. Working hard, possibly having a worthy female companion by your side, is a sign of maturity and, well, masculinity to me.

Removing yourself for any collective responsibility, being a MGTOW, bulding an existence that is totally self-centred life isn't completely insane in this time and age, I respect that, too. But you have to respect the fact that if a man feels that call to a higher purpose, he is definitely no cuck and no wimp.

Italy's own Gianluca Vacchi is my age and also lives part time in Miami just like I do. While he inherited his wealth and I had to create my own, he and I are of very similar mindset.

I understand he is hated in Italy by people who would kill be able to live his lifestyle. Perhaps the biggest mistakes he talks about making was being married in 2014, but he realized his error and fired his wife in 2017. He is now the happiest he has ever been in his life.

I encourage you to ask him, in Italian, if he prefers his former married life or his current lifestyle.



Calling that man "missing out on his higher purpose" is just envy, pure and simple.

Everybody in Italy knows Gianluca Vacchi. His only claim to fame was that he started flaunting his lifestyle when he got bored of playing with the family companies. I am sure lots of young Italians are vacuous enough to drool over his designer clothes, his exotic vacations replete with exotic bimbo arse, or his DJ shenanigans. I personally don't feel I have anything important to learn from him. Good for him, but I am personally not buying into his life choices, at least those he made public.

Why does it have to be "envy" all the time? You asked me for an opinion on this chap and I told him he means nothing to me. You have this habit, in your discussion, to dismiss anything that people don't approve or want as "envy". I don't envy his lifestyle or his. I have my life, my principles and so long I'll follow them, I'll be happy.

[hypermak]

I hope not to disappoint you, but I have been thinking about this long before I joined this forum and long before this thread (or the previous ones, where our discussion used far more toxic language).

Not disappointed at all. It is clear to see how the realizations affect you from just the volume and nature of your posts. You are bothered by things with which you agree but don't at all want to agree. The constant posts tend to mean you are hoping to read a "smoking gun" comment to which you can say, "Ah ha!, there is something that I find morally repugnant enough to purge this thinking from my brain!" But that smoking gun will never come....

I don't find anything morally repugnant and even if I did, I am certainly not the type to climb on top of my ivory tower and remain solemnly silent. The fact I grace your post with copious reply, honestly, speaks just as much about my willingness to entertain a (possibly civilised) debate as your thought-provoking power.

[hypermak]

Sigh, this is why we need religion, this is why we need to think of life as a continuum, this is why we need to think of something beyond our skin and bones.

The first thing I wholeheartedly agree with you on

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Maybe my brain is wired differently from yours, but I simply cannot conceive a life that is entirely self-centered. The higher purpose of men, in fact all of biological beings on this planet, is to collaborate and prosper as a collective, as an ecosystem.

But I see you as very much the self-centered one in that you see your personal worldview as THE higher purpose of men. That is it is exploitative of men and no longer advisable for men is 100% lost on you because of perhaps your culture, your religion, and your life experience, but it is indeed self-centered.

If you choose carefully you won't find yourself in the situation of living under another woman's thumb.

Ah yes, one of the most classic fallacies ever identified by the red pill. The infamous NAWALT (Not all women are like that) argument which has been debunked so heavily that it has become a point of humor now. The fact is that every man who falls into ruin, poverty, or suicide due to a failed marriage at one time felt he chose his wife carefully enough. I'm sure you will think that too if you go down that path. I'm not sure why that is never understandable to the "Just pick the right woman" crowd. As I mentioned before, EVERY man who marries hands a figurative loaded gun to his "carefully chosen" wife. Whether she chooses to shot him with it is entirely up to her and his ability to keep her sufficiently satisfied.

As for the responsibility that comes with having to work 5 days a week and swallow quite a bit of shit to support your family, it's the sacrifice I was talking about on my earlier reply. Working hard, possibly having a worthy female companion by your side, is a sign of maturity and, well, masculinity to me.

As someone who worked harder than he should have for years I can tell you making it to the to where you don't have to work anymore and where you call all the shots around you is considerably more masculine than slaving to enrich someone else or to please a modern woman.

Removing yourself for any collective responsibility, being a MGTOW, bulding an existence that is totally self-centred life isn't completely insane in this time and age, I respect that, too. But you have to respect the fact that if a man feels that call to a higher purpose, he is definitely no cuck and no wimp.

Any argument advocating collective responsibility is a Marxist argument which I consider "Dead On Arrival." No need to go any further there. Also, this "higher purpose" you like to love to cite is an almost religious mantra that's been indoctrinated into you somewhere. What I can tell you is that if man feels his PRIMARY purpose is to serve as a husband and father, than he is indeed a cuck and a wimp. A wife and children should be seen as a complement to a successful man's life, not the very purpose of it. Any wild animal can breed offspring, but none can affect the world in concrete and monumental ways such as powerful men on his life's mission. Again, if your primary life's mission is simply siring children with a wife, you are no different than the most basic of animals.

I am sure lots of young Italians are vacuous enough to drool over his designer clothes, his exotic vacations replete with exotic bimbo arse, or his DJ shenanigans.

I am quite sure those 99% of Italians who consider him vacuous, would be all to happy to trade circumstances with him if the situation presented itself. That psychology reminds me of the fat, ugly American girls who consider wealthy fashion models vacuous while secretly wishing they were as fortunate as they are. Cognitive Dissonance 101!

Why does it have to be "envy" all the time? You asked me for an opinion on this chap and I told him he means nothing to me. You have this habit, in your discussion, to dismiss anything that people don't approve or want as "envy". I don't envy his lifestyle or his. I have my life, my principles and so long I'll follow them, I'll be happy.

again, Cognitive Dissonance 101 because it very much IS envy, pure and simple and without ANY doubt. In English, we call envy of this type, "sour grapes" which is a mental coping mechanism meant to dismiss that which we would really want, but feel we could never achieve.

You yourself admit that you have modest "investments" which prove that even you have higher financial and lifestyle ambitions, but since Vacchi's level of wealth and freedom seems out of reach to you, you dismiss it vacuous. I certainly see that for what it is!

You strike me as a young man caught in the throes of internal contradictions have yet to be resolved so you are in a repetitive holding pattern craving that confirmation that one way or the other is for you. There is nothing at all wrong with that stage of unknowing, but greater self-awareness and HONESTY with oneself goes a long way towards resolving it.

[WorldTraveler]

I have long been convinced that online dating media such as Tinder, Match, POF, etc are NOT FOR MEN. The men on those media outnumber the women by ten (or more) to one and the conventional wisdom is that many women use those sites for attention-getting from hordes of "thirsty" men.

However, after having been back in the USA for a little over a month now, I have discovered a niche that is PRO MALE because the ratios of men to women are reversed. That niche is the sugar baby/sugar daddy phenomenon.

My experience is that women (many quite hot) actively reach out to me and I have to turn down and I have become choosy about those with whom I interact. Hot, white and Asian women from ages 18 to 29 are FULLY in play and I have not been flaked on yet in meeting up with them.

I have not had so much success with young, hot, American women in my life until now. Some theories I have about why this is so easy are:

-Young women are currently saddled with debt of school, lifestyle expectations, and men who are increasingly becoming MGTOW.

-Many of these women have not known strong, successful, fathers who were either absent or emasculated cucks.

-Sugar daddy sites are self-selecting in that men of means participate who are willing to pay for dates and treat the girl nicely as a matter or course, not luck.

-Some of these girls next door are willing to have sex and have ongoing relationships with you if they like you.

-Many of these young women are often willing to have ongoing relationships with me WITHOUT my having to pay anything other than dinner and a movie.

So why do I point these things out? Well, I want other men who are discouraged from online dating to give "sugaring" a chance. I would have never imagined that I could have a growing bevy of 20 year old at age 50.

To be sure, there are shameless gold diggers and girls who are looking to pay to play. But I have not dealt with any because those types are very apparent with their "vampy" and overly provocative photos. The girl next door types are generally students seeking mature, male, companionship and treatment. Most of them are choosy about the men agree to meet and they actually respect accomplished older men.

Some girls ask indicate interest in getting a monthly allowance from a Sugar Daddy, being taken on trips, or treated to spending sprees. I have found that it bluster because I have not done anymore than paid for dates and occasionally slipped a girl a 50 bill for her trouble. Most of these girls later REFUSE money because they like to hang out with me.

I'm curious if other guys have had similar experiences with this Sugar Baby Culture. I highly recommend it and I was a skeptic to the highest degree beforehand.

Contrarian Expat, I see you posted this initial post over 2 years ago back in 2017. The whole thread was not informative about Seeking Arrangement, but turned into moralizing and debating about is SA prostitution and is marriage good. I would like find out about Seeking Arrangement in the USA. CE, you've had 2 years. How was it? What was you success ratio with it? How many girls did you have to chat with online to get a date? How many duds did you have to take out to get one good one? What percentage produced sex? What arrangements did you have to do to get success? How many dates did that take? How much did it cost you? Give us some field reports about your two years of using Seeking Arrangement.

[hypermak]

But I see you as very much the self-centered one in that you see your personal worldview as THE higher purpose of men. That is it is exploitative of men and no longer advisable for men is 100% lost on you because of perhaps your culture, your religion, and your life experience, but it is indeed self-centered.

Don't confuse my opinion with what it means. What I see as the higher purpose is not some wacky opinion, it's what men have been doing for centuries, all over the world. You could say that not all men are good fathers, not all men are good husbands, not all men are good men. To reiterate, what is commendable is that at least they try their best to serve a family, and then society.

I am saying that I believe that, for a man, having a higher purpose, a life choice where he is not the alpha and the omega of everything, is very important. I am not writing off alternative life choices but I am clearly stating where most of my respect goes.

It's a personal view, so if you want to call it self-centred, go ahead. It's just my opinion. It's what makes sense to me and, coincidentally, to a lot of other men throughout history.

Ah yes, one of the most classic fallacies ever identified by the red pill. The infamous NAWALT (Not all women are like that) argument which has been debunked so heavily that it has become a point of humor now. The fact is that every man who falls into ruin, poverty, or suicide due to a failed marriage at one time felt he chose his wife carefully enough. I'm sure you will think that too if you go down that path. I'm not sure why that is never understandable to the "Just pick the right woman" crowd. As I mentioned before, EVERY man who marries hands a figurative loaded gun to his "carefully chosen" wife. Whether she chooses to shot him with it is entirely up to her and his ability to keep her sufficiently satisfied.

It's more of a NAMALT (Not All Men Are Like That)

Fine, you never got married, never committed your personal resources (time, effort, money etc.) to any purpose that is not yourself, and you are feeling happy and satisfied with your life. That is you. Red pill speculation apart, can you entertain the notion that some men may be looking for happiness or - heaven forbid - they might have already found a modicum of happiness, in a committed relationship with some woman? It's not a wacky theory, it's what has been happening for centuries, for generations.

So you're postulating that no man has ever felt happy and fulfilled in the pursuit of married and/or family life. Every man, anywhere, regardless of socio-cultural background, personality, moral and religious, every single one of them would have been better off alone exercising the power of his masculinity, indeed male privilege, on his own? You understand the enormity of this statement?

As someone who worked harder than he should have for years I can tell you making it to the to where you don't have to work anymore and where you call all the shots around you is considerably more masculine than slaving to enrich someone else or to please a modern woman.

Nothing wrong with living a serene, independent life with the fruit of one's own past hard work. How is that not compatible with having raised a family, perhaps with a woman who still is by your side?

Any argument advocating collective responsibility is a Marxist argument which I consider "Dead On Arrival." No need to go any further there. Also, this "higher purpose" you like to love to cite is an almost religious mantra that's been indoctrinated into you somewhere. What I can tell you is that if man feels his PRIMARY purpose is to serve as a husband and father, than he is indeed a cuck and a wimp. A wife and children should be seen as a complement to a successful man's life, not the very purpose of it. Any wild animal can breed offspring, but none can affect the world in concrete and monumental ways such as powerful men on his life's mission. Again, if your primary life's mission is simply siring children with a wife, you are no different than the most basic of animals.

I think we can leave Marx's ghost and religion alone. Certain men are obviously destined to great things, great achievements in advancing human knowledge, or in the arts, sports, even leaving a lasting memory on movie-goers. The reality remain that most men won't change the world. Unless proven otherwise, I think both you and me squarely fall into this category. The most obvious legacy they can leave behind is a couple of well-behaved, well-educated children who will get another spin on the ride of life and remember their dad as a loving role model, rather than an a-hole.

If not that of creating some sort of legacy via your family or your endeavours, can you tell, me, what else is left for a man to project himself into the future? Again, don't want to sound polemic, but I am not sure that spending your time travelling around Eastern Europe, banging girls a third of your age, is something exactly world-changing, however well-deserved and well-planned it might be.

I am quite sure those 99% of Italians who consider him vacuous, would be all to happy to trade circumstances with him if the situation presented itself. That psychology reminds me of the fat, ugly American girls who consider wealthy fashion models vacuous while secretly wishing they were as fortunate as they are. Cognitive Dissonance 101!

I think you're idolising him too much. He is just a former rich kid who chose to live the grand life a bit later than usual in life. I think he got famous for a viral dance video somewhere on YT. Nobody knew him before and I guess people might forget who he is pretty soon.

The reality is that, for each easy-going millionaire who wears Prada tip to toe and jets himself around the world, there are hundreds of thousands people who have to make do with the life they have. Of course most middle class men snowed under a 30-year mortgage, bills to pay and screaming children would love to trade circumstances with Mr Vacchi. I don't even think these people actively despise him. They simply have other stuff to think about.

Again, Cognitive Dissonance 101 because it very much IS envy, pure and simple and without ANY doubt. In English, we call envy of this type, "sour grapes" which is a mental coping mechanism meant to dismiss that which we would really want, but feel we could never achieve.

Dude, I am telling you, again, I don't care about his life. I am not envious about Gianluca Vacchi's life like I am not envious of yours. More power to both of you. Apart from the challenge of typing away in a kitchen management office in a language that is not mine, I am not coping with anything here.

If you are still referring to our past diatribe, I made it clear that what triggered me was you starting making stupid assumptions about @MrMan and myself to reinforce your thesis that your lifestyle is a far superior expression of masculinity and masculine wisdom. To repeat myself, more power to you but, I am sorry, a man who remains a loving husband to his woman and a responsible father to his kids has far more of my respect and admiration. This is the way the cookie crumbles.

You yourself admit that you have modest "investments" which prove that even you have higher financial and lifestyle ambitions, but since Vacchi's level of wealth and freedom seems out of reach to you, you dismiss it vacuous. I certainly see that for what it is!

You strike me as a young man caught in the throes of internal contradictions have yet to be resolved so you are in a repetitive holding pattern craving that confirmation that one way or the other is for you. There is nothing at all wrong with that stage of unknowing, but greater self-awareness and HONESTY with oneself goes a long way towards resolving it.

What is this supposed to mean? I invested what I could and convinced my Dad to invest a bit of his money with 2 asset managers I met in London, both with good results. I am following the example of millions of small investors, it doesn't mean I am a fan of one particular wealthy man.

I am being very honest with myself and, besides anonymity, with you all on this forum. The only contradictions I see are those you are throwing at me, hoping that some of them will stick. They are your contradictions, not mine.

You are the one who believes higher endeavours are not compatible with that of creating a family legacy. You are the one who believes that only an unmarried, childless man can fully enjoy the fruits of his hard work later in life. You are the one who believes that dodging the evil feminist state is the best thing you, therefore any man, can do. You are the one who is measuring his success all the time using the age of his conquests and the figures in his bank account. Or not?

[MrMan]

Hypermak
Well stated.

[Neo]

I gave up trying to explain my point of view to other people. Now I realize, they can have their opinion, and I'll keep mine. Also I've realized, that many people are simply unable to accept certain thoughts they were not meant to accept. Then things can easily turn into hostility or extended arguments in futility.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I gave up trying to explain my point of view to other people. Now I realize, they can have their opinion, and I'll keep mine. Also I've realized, that many people are simply unable to accept certain thoughts they were not meant to accept. Then things can easily turn into hostility or extended arguments in futility.

But the discussion is not so much for HIM. It is for the readers and lurkers in larger measure.

He fully understands now what he would be getting into and I suspect that sometime in the future, he will either change his mind before the jumping into the fire, or have the light bulb go off after it is all to late and he is burned to a crisp. Either way, he will know that I was right.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

But I see you as very much the self-centered one in that you see your personal worldview as THE higher purpose of men. That is it is exploitative of men and no longer advisable for men is 100% lost on you because of perhaps your culture, your religion, and your life experience, but it is indeed self-centered.

Don't confuse my opinion with what it means. What I see as the higher purpose is not some wacky opinion, it's what men have been doing for centuries, all over the world. You could say that not all men are good fathers, not all men are good husbands, not all men are good men. To reiterate, what is commendable is that at least they try their best to serve a family, and then society.

I am saying that I believe that, for a man, having a higher purpose, a life choice where he is not the alpha and the omega of everything, is very important. I am not writing off alternative life choices but I am clearly stating where most of my respect goes.

It's a personal view, so if you want to call it self-centred, go ahead. It's just my opinion. It's what makes sense to me and, coincidentally, to a lot of other men throughout history.

Ah yes, one of the most classic fallacies ever identified by the red pill. The infamous NAWALT (Not all women are like that) argument which has been debunked so heavily that it has become a point of humor now. The fact is that every man who falls into ruin, poverty, or suicide due to a failed marriage at one time felt he chose his wife carefully enough. I'm sure you will think that too if you go down that path. I'm not sure why that is never understandable to the "Just pick the right woman" crowd. As I mentioned before, EVERY man who marries hands a figurative loaded gun to his "carefully chosen" wife. Whether she chooses to shot him with it is entirely up to her and his ability to keep her sufficiently satisfied.

It's more of a NAMALT (Not All Men Are Like That)

Fine, you never got married, never committed your personal resources (time, effort, money etc.) to any purpose that is not yourself, and you are feeling happy and satisfied with your life. That is you. Red pill speculation apart, can you entertain the notion that some men may be looking for happiness or - heaven forbid - they might have already found a modicum of happiness, in a committed relationship with some woman? It's not a wacky theory, it's what has been happening for centuries, for generations.

So you're postulating that no man has ever felt happy and fulfilled in the pursuit of married and/or family life. Every man, anywhere, regardless of socio-cultural background, personality, moral and religious, every single one of them would have been better off alone exercising the power of his masculinity, indeed male privilege, on his own? You understand the enormity of this statement?

As someone who worked harder than he should have for years I can tell you making it to the to where you don't have to work anymore and where you call all the shots around you is considerably more masculine than slaving to enrich someone else or to please a modern woman.

Nothing wrong with living a serene, independent life with the fruit of one's own past hard work. How is that not compatible with having raised a family, perhaps with a woman who still is by your side?

Any argument advocating collective responsibility is a Marxist argument which I consider "Dead On Arrival." No need to go any further there. Also, this "higher purpose" you like to love to cite is an almost religious mantra that's been indoctrinated into you somewhere. What I can tell you is that if man feels his PRIMARY purpose is to serve as a husband and father, than he is indeed a cuck and a wimp. A wife and children should be seen as a complement to a successful man's life, not the very purpose of it. Any wild animal can breed offspring, but none can affect the world in concrete and monumental ways such as powerful men on his life's mission. Again, if your primary life's mission is simply siring children with a wife, you are no different than the most basic of animals.

I think we can leave Marx's ghost and religion alone. Certain men are obviously destined to great things, great achievements in advancing human knowledge, or in the arts, sports, even leaving a lasting memory on movie-goers. The reality remain that most men won't change the world. Unless proven otherwise, I think both you and me squarely fall into this category. The most obvious legacy they can leave behind is a couple of well-behaved, well-educated children who will get another spin on the ride of life and remember their dad as a loving role model, rather than an a-hole.

If not that of creating some sort of legacy via your family or your endeavours, can you tell, me, what else is left for a man to project himself into the future? Again, don't want to sound polemic, but I am not sure that spending your time travelling around Eastern Europe, banging girls a third of your age, is something exactly world-changing, however well-deserved and well-planned it might be.

I am quite sure those 99% of Italians who consider him vacuous, would be all to happy to trade circumstances with him if the situation presented itself. That psychology reminds me of the fat, ugly American girls who consider wealthy fashion models vacuous while secretly wishing they were as fortunate as they are. Cognitive Dissonance 101!

I think you're idolising him too much. He is just a former rich kid who chose to live the grand life a bit later than usual in life. I think he got famous for a viral dance video somewhere on YT. Nobody knew him before and I guess people might forget who he is pretty soon.

The reality is that, for each easy-going millionaire who wears Prada tip to toe and jets himself around the world, there are hundreds of thousands people who have to make do with the life they have. Of course most middle class men snowed under a 30-year mortgage, bills to pay and screaming children would love to trade circumstances with Mr Vacchi. I don't even think these people actively despise him. They simply have other stuff to think about.

Again, Cognitive Dissonance 101 because it very much IS envy, pure and simple and without ANY doubt. In English, we call envy of this type, "sour grapes" which is a mental coping mechanism meant to dismiss that which we would really want, but feel we could never achieve.

Dude, I am telling you, again, I don't care about his life. I am not envious about Gianluca Vacchi's life like I am not envious of yours. More power to both of you. Apart from the challenge of typing away in a kitchen management office in a language that is not mine, I am not coping with anything here.

If you are still referring to our past diatribe, I made it clear that what triggered me was you starting making stupid assumptions about @MrMan and myself to reinforce your thesis that your lifestyle is a far superior expression of masculinity and masculine wisdom. To repeat myself, more power to you but, I am sorry, a man who remains a loving husband to his woman and a responsible father to his kids has far more of my respect and admiration. This is the way the cookie crumbles.

You yourself admit that you have modest "investments" which prove that even you have higher financial and lifestyle ambitions, but since Vacchi's level of wealth and freedom seems out of reach to you, you dismiss it vacuous. I certainly see that for what it is!

You strike me as a young man caught in the throes of internal contradictions have yet to be resolved so you are in a repetitive holding pattern craving that confirmation that one way or the other is for you. There is nothing at all wrong with that stage of unknowing, but greater self-awareness and HONESTY with oneself goes a long way towards resolving it.

What is this supposed to mean? I invested what I could and convinced my Dad to invest a bit of his money with 2 asset managers I met in London, both with good results. I am following the example of millions of small investors, it doesn't mean I am a fan of one particular wealthy man.

I am being very honest with myself and, besides anonymity, with you all on this forum. The only contradictions I see are those you are throwing at me, hoping that some of them will stick. They are your contradictions, not mine.

You are the one who believes higher endeavours are not compatible with that of creating a family legacy. You are the one who believes that only an unmarried, childless man can fully enjoy the fruits of his hard work later in life. You are the one who believes that dodging the evil feminist state is the best thing you, therefore any man, can do. You are the one who is measuring his success all the time using the age of his conquests and the figures in his bank account. Or not?

Again, if you get married, you’ll pay the consequences sooner or later. You’ve been sufficiently warned already, but the best lessons often come with personal realization borne of negative experience.

Some men aim high in life, and some men aim low. If the pinnacle of your existence is to legally attach some entitled, declining, albatross around your neck to follow some traditional paradigm, you are in for a world of surprise. I have seen many men fall victim to the dupe of modern marriage, but none who approximated the level of naïveté you exhibit. Well, there is a price to pay for that. Please do let us know how much it comes to when reality comes to you demanding immediate payment.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I have long been convinced that online dating media such as Tinder, Match, POF, etc are NOT FOR MEN. The men on those media outnumber the women by ten (or more) to one and the conventional wisdom is that many women use those sites for attention-getting from hordes of "thirsty" men.

However, after having been back in the USA for a little over a month now, I have discovered a niche that is PRO MALE because the ratios of men to women are reversed. That niche is the sugar baby/sugar daddy phenomenon.

My experience is that women (many quite hot) actively reach out to me and I have to turn down and I have become choosy about those with whom I interact. Hot, white and Asian women from ages 18 to 29 are FULLY in play and I have not been flaked on yet in meeting up with them.

I have not had so much success with young, hot, American women in my life until now. Some theories I have about why this is so easy are:

-Young women are currently saddled with debt of school, lifestyle expectations, and men who are increasingly becoming MGTOW.

-Many of these women have not known strong, successful, fathers who were either absent or emasculated cucks.

-Sugar daddy sites are self-selecting in that men of means participate who are willing to pay for dates and treat the girl nicely as a matter or course, not luck.

-Some of these girls next door are willing to have sex and have ongoing relationships with you if they like you.

-Many of these young women are often willing to have ongoing relationships with me WITHOUT my having to pay anything other than dinner and a movie.

So why do I point these things out? Well, I want other men who are discouraged from online dating to give "sugaring" a chance. I would have never imagined that I could have a growing bevy of 20 year old at age 50.

To be sure, there are shameless gold diggers and girls who are looking to pay to play. But I have not dealt with any because those types are very apparent with their "vampy" and overly provocative photos. The girl next door types are generally students seeking mature, male, companionship and treatment. Most of them are choosy about the men agree to meet and they actually respect accomplished older men.

Some girls ask indicate interest in getting a monthly allowance from a Sugar Daddy, being taken on trips, or treated to spending sprees. I have found that it bluster because I have not done anymore than paid for dates and occasionally slipped a girl a 50 bill for her trouble. Most of these girls later REFUSE money because they like to hang out with me.

I'm curious if other guys have had similar experiences with this Sugar Baby Culture. I highly recommend it and I was a skeptic to the highest degree beforehand.

Contrarian Expat, I see you posted this initial post over 2 years ago back in 2017. The whole thread was not informative about Seeking Arrangement, but turned into moralizing and debating about is SA prostitution and is marriage good. I would like find out about Seeking Arrangement in the USA. CE, you've had 2 years. How was it? What was you success ratio with it? How many girls did you have to chat with online to get a date? How many duds did you have to take out to get one good one? What percentage produced sex? What arrangements did you have to do to get success? How many dates did that take? How much did it cost you? Give us some field reports about your two years of using Seeking Arrangement.

Not at all a fan of that site. It was long ago overrun by
49ers (4s who think they are 9s), sex workers looking to hustle on the side, and bored girls looking to experiment.

In one of my posts, in this thread, I talk about meeting girls in day to day interactions, inviting them to coffee or lunch, then gently proposing a modest allowance to them to help them.

Depending on the country and the culture, this can be quite fruitful. Ironically, the more restrictive and traditional the culture, the higher the batting average.

In more liberal countries like the USA, I very briefly chat up a cute girl like a cashier or bartender or service provider and tell them “A girl like you should not have to work so hard. You should have a sugar daddy.” Almost without fail they are flattered because most of them have friends who have been so lucky. I then either get their number with about 50/50 success. But if they don’t give their number, some will give an Instagram or Snapchat handle instead which is just as good. For those who outright decline to give contact details, I slip them my number with my name and a note reminding them that they would not have to work there if they had a sugar daddy. And you know what, a good proportion usually at least call even if they don’t follow through due to a boyfriend, personal reservations, or otherwise.

Another, less effective approach is to initiate chat via direct message on social media. I would ensure you scrub your personal details and real name first, or just create a scrubbed account just for sugaring. After a compliment, and a comment or two of back and forth, ask if they have a sugar daddy or not, then propose a coffee meet up.

In the the USA, girls consider sugar babies to be the lucky ones. It has gone mainstream and as one girl told me last week, “It’s widespread.”

In Eastern Europe, the girls use the term “Sponsor.”

From a sociological point of view, there is some vacuum being filled in America by sugar daddies. I personally think it is a combination of things:

-Lack of younger guys actually seeking actual girlfriends.

-Lack of older, wiser male figures who these girls crave perhaps due to divorce or to having cucked fathers.

-Lack of assertive masculinity in the culture.

-Economic struggle to make ends meet among the poor, working, and even middle classes.

-FOMO (Fear of missing out).

There was one instance in Europe last summer where I Tinder (Tinder sucks, but it works in some places in Europe) matched with a gorgeous girl told me she was looking for a sugar daddy. We met and had a great time for several weeks. She was Lithuanian and working remotely in the city I was in while living with her Russian boyfriend with whom she claimed she has an open relationship. She was a feminist, vegan, and very SJW which wore on me, but I irony was not lost on me. She was seeking out a masculine man to both give her orgasms (I could tell she was not accustomed to them) and to subsidize her modest income. It was great but I cut it off when she told me she was an ardent feminist. She wanted to keep it going however but sleeping with the enemy I could not continue to do.

The lesson there is this is a generational phenomenon with the Generation Z girls. It would have been unthinkable when I was in my twenties and thirties, but voila here it is.

One thing, don’t listen to any haters (both male and female) and there are a lot out there including on this site. People HATE when others succeed where they deep down wish they could so they want to rain on your parade and take away from your enjoyment. If you see them for what they are, you actually ENJOY the hate/envy because it validates your success!

So polish yourself, dress well, be debonair, urbane, well spoken, and just meet them in everyday life (but not at the job of course).

[Shemp]

I would like find out about Seeking Arrangement in the USA. CE, you've had 2 years. How was it? What was you success ratio with it? How many girls did you have to chat with online to get a date? How many duds did you have to take out to get one good one? What percentage produced sex? What arrangements did you have to do to get success? How many dates did that take? How much did it cost you? Give us some field reports about your two years of using Seeking Arrangement.

I answered some of these questions in my previous post in this thread. But I will add some more thoughts here.

You will probably have to view 20 or more profiles on Seeking or Tinder to find one worth meeting, then send 10 messages to set up one initial meet and greet date at a coffee shop, and then maybe 10 such dates to find a good match (some of the dates may flake, be prepared for that). So there needs to be a pool of several thousand girls in your city. Same grind as regular dating. Which is why I recommend long term relationships: finding a good sugar baby is as difficult as finding a good regular girlfriend or wife, so when you do find one, stick with her if possible.

You can have a harem of sugar babies if you can afford it, or stick with one. In either case, you can negotiate for her to be monogamous with you if you are very worried about STDs and you trust her to stick to the agreement of monogamy. I just use a condom and don't worry about herpes and other things condoms don't protect against. If you already have herpes, probably should give her your test results to avoid a lawsuit.

You can't buy love or sexual attraction. Personally, I just pass if the girl doesn't immediately show physical attraction to me at our first date. Get in good physical shape (not fat, some muscles, good haircut or maybe shaved head if balding), wear nice clothes, etc. Plus you need some game. Don't come across as a desperate, needy, slobbering fool with no sexual experience, no sexual options, etc. Don't explicitly discuss sex. Talk about the money you are offering, emphasizing the yearly amount, which is more impressive. If she doesn't act enthusiastic, back off.

I suggest offering $200-$300 for 2-3 hours, meeting once weekly. Put the money on the table, spread out so she can hunt by eye ($100 bills best), and tell her it remains there until after sex and she can pick it up on her way out. This way, if she doesn't carry through with the sex, no money. Meeting only once a week keeps the interest level high longer. These prices are for flyover country, like Dallas lets say. Higher prices in expensive coastal cities. $200 * 52 weeks per year = $10400, $300 * 52 = $15600. If you aren't comfortable paying such amounts, then sugar dating probably won't work, since you'll start to resent the girl for being too expensive. As I see it, you can recoup much of this expense by not having a lavish lifestyle like some guys did to attract women. Drive a beater car, live in a dump apartment, etc. If living in a dump apartment, first few sex meetings should be at a mid-price hotel. Once she gets accustomed to receiving $200-$300 of hard cash, which most guys don't provide (most guys are pretend sugar daddies, not the real thing) then she'll be open to visiting a dump apartment.

Basically, sugar dating is the same as regular dating except you are making yourself more attractive by offering money. Thus you can get better quality or younger women than you would otherwise, and better attitudes from the women you get. If you are sexually unattractive or lack social skills, you're better off going with professional prostitutes.

The thoughts above are based on my actual experiences, confirmed by reading what other guys have said on various forums. It is possible my standards are higher than most guys and/or I am less attractive or have worse game than other guys. If so, then maybe guys with lower standards or more attractiveness and/or better game would have an easier time than I had. At this point, I have thrown in the towel on both regular and sugar dating in the USA, because it's too much effort for too little reward in the flyover city where I live when I'm not traveling. Offering more money than $300/meeting is unlikely to help, since my problem was not lack of candidates, even at $200/meeting, my problem was lack of quality candidates with whom there was mutual sexual attraction.