Thursday, December 11, 2008

Sugar Daddies - Part 2

The whole sugar daddy thing is really stressing me out, so if you don't mind I'd like to drop the topic for now. Let's talk about more fun stuff! But if you don't mind there are a few things I'd like to clear up for all the newbies out there that have been asking questions.

First off, let me define for you guys again exactly what a "Sugar Daddy" is. Remember your friend Mike who used to spend his entire paycheck on a stripper named Crystal because "...she's not like the others..."? Well, he's not a sugar daddy. Now the guy who owns Mikes company, who keeps his girlfriend in an apartment 2 blocks from the office just so he can get a nooner - He's a sugar daddy.

What's the difference you ask? Cash was spent in both cases, but being a SD is a power thing. I can't speak for other girls who've been Sugar Babies, but in my experience I've seen 3 different types.

Since I'm not full service, I've only had 2 types. The first is the guy who just wants arm candy and is willing to pay for it. This is the guy who wants you around just to make him look good. I've had a couple of these and boy are they fun! My job was to hang all over them in front of their jealous friends and be the life of the party. Think of it as being a cruise director for 1 guy. This is the best gig to get since you're wined and dined (and occasionally travel!). Plus the guy knows it's just for show so they usually don't give you any trouble.

The second kind of SD is the "Father" type. These guys want to LITERALLY daddy you. I guess I'd call Pete one of these since he's been trying to "take care" of me. These guys shower you with attention, gifts and money. I hate to make a stereotype here, but they tend to have really fucked up family lives. I think their deal is that they really just want to feel like they're taking care of someone who actually appreciates it as opposed to their family members who take him for granted.

Some of these guys expect sex and some don't. The problem with this type unfortunately is that eventually they end up trying to seduce you and expect you to give in as a "symbol" of your appreciation for all that they've done for you. It can get messy (no pun intended), but not all the time. My Sugar Daddy Brad is an example - keeps telling me to go back to school or buy my own business or whatever. And only on occasion will he badger me for a blowjob. LOL

Lastly, there's the dominance guys. These are the ones that you're all probably thinking of when I say "Sugar Daddy." They get sex out of it, but it's not really about getting laid. Remember Eliot Spitzer? He spent $5000 to get laid, but he wasn't a SD. For these guys it's all about having a girl at their beck and call 24/7. I could never do this because I hate being bossed around, but I've had girlfriends who've had this kind of arrangement. It's not a bad gig if you can get it and the SD isn't abusive.

And that's the last word on Sugar Daddies for now.

I need a new Freak of the Week. Where the Hell were all you guys during Thanksgiving weekend?



arc said...

No way I would bother with that unless I'd get some.

Stubby said...

I think that means you're not SD material.

Me, I was with my wife and extended family half a country away.

Anonymous said...

I get the SD stuff--the categories, the rules, the workings of it. It's a bit more complicated than I thought. Confirms my suspicion---men are stupid--me included. I suspect that I would be a SD even if I wasn't getting full service. I guess I would just be hoping for some luck down the line. So where do I sign up, miss?

Jane said...


Great insight and personable examples.

Have you met most of your sugar daddies through your work?

cj said...

Yes, I met them all through work. However, I've set up a few of my friends with SD's outside of work (the ones who were looking for full service). When I did the online dating thing a couple years ago, I specifically used a Sugar Daddy website. Let me tell ya, I chatted with some interesting guys! But I never had the nerve to actually meet any of them, so I gave it up.

It's a misconception that SD's are all about the booty. Anyone can pay for sex, but to be a SD takes commitment.


Tom Moran said...

Need I remind you, dear lady, that some of us would have visited you over Thanksgiving if we had known where to find you?

So there. Nyah. :-Þ

Sucre Bebe said...

Great way of explaining it.

Don't get stressed-then you will need a massage!

Anonymous said...

Where was I over Turkey day?

Broke, and i make decent coin.

Anonymous said...

This blog is so great! Thanks so much for sharing, cj. I always wonder what might be going through my masseuse's head.

Thorn said...

CJ, like the strippers I see and have SD/SB relationships with you fail to take into account that hand and blow jobs ARE sex.

I am NOT making a moral judgement. I just believe in healthy mental living by never deluding myself as to what things are, and aren't.

When a relationship exists because money is exchanged between two people, and lets face it were there no money exchanged between SDs and SBs there would be no relationship between them, that relationship is commercial in nature.

When sex exists in a commercial relationship it is prostitution. There is NOTHING wrong with that, but calling it something other than what it is makes it easy to delude oneself. Deluded people make mistakes. Sometimes bad mistakes. I don't like making mistakes so I DON'T delude myself as to what things are, and aren't.

I simply suggest that others be as open with themselves as I am.

It can sometimes pay to lie to others. It NEVER pays to lie to yourself.

Anonymous said...

Thorn - Definitions are not set in stone. I'm pretty certain you cannot lose your virginity with a hand job, and she has stated that she dosen't give BJ's to SD's.

YOU define handjobs as sex. Good for you. If I defined them that way I guess I lost my virginity many years younger than 16 when I had my first handjob....with MYSELF.

Who knew you could take your own virginity?

Thorn said...

To ReflexVE: That is a perfect example of the self-delusional thinking I reference above. We can have any definitions for ourselves that we may choose, but the definitions society makes as a whole are NOT within our direct ability to change. They are also not within our ability to protect ourselves from completely so they must be dealt with.

To pretend that our own definitions are so important that we can use them as a trump card against society's is just asking to be hurt.

Hence it being prudent not to fool yourself about such things, and to understand where ones actions fit on the scale where others may make judgements about us that can hurt us, and therefore be armed against it.

I am sure you are well aware that society defines a female masterbating a man as a sexual act. Society defines sexual activity that comes with direct financial remuneration as prostitution. An acknowledgement of this allows the clear thinking adult to act with knowledge of forethought and responsibility to self and others.

I do as I do because I want what I want, but I try to do it in a way that causes the least amount of trouble for those I care about, including myself.

Not saying, "I can define what I do the way I choose", but more correctly that I acknowledge I'm going to have to deal with other people's definitions as well, allows me to do precisely that.

And that is simply the application of common sense to our acts of "providing" and "hobbying" [ugh, I hate those terms].

Anonymous said...

And let me guess, your more than willing to promote your definition as *the* definition.

Like I said, by your definition I was not a virgin after twelve or so. After all I was giving myself plenty of handjobs around then. Saying that it requires a female for it to have been a sex act is silly, by that standard self-gratification in general is not a sex act, yet I'm pretty certain that many forms of it clearly are.

You are welcome to live within your own world, with your own black and white definitions of what things are. Everyone has their own, certainly. But its difficult to take you seriously when your entire argument seems to be a semantic one.

Assuming everyonee agreed to your definition, so what? At worst it simply means that CJ is by your definition a 'sex worker' who only provides hand jobs. How does that change a damn thing?

cj said...

Let me say something guys...

I DON'T consider hand releases as "sex." In fact, I don't consider anything I've done in the rooms as sex. If nothing is going into or coming out of my body, then I'm OK with it. And that's MY definition and I'm sticking to it.

Everything else that I do consider sex - I don't do in the rooms. Period. And that includes kissing. These lips don't touch anything on a client (except for the occaional peck on the cheek out in the lobby).

You can't call any of this black or white. If a guy puts on a giant diaper and asks me to spank him, is that sex? He may think so (and compensate me accordingly!) but I don't. I fully believe that it does NOT take 2 people to tango. If a customer jerks off on my feet - he may have had sex, but I most certainly did not.

As for the money part of The Business, this is where I reluctantly agree that it's "sex work." But I hate that term and don't like using it.

Adam said...


Thanks for clearing up some of the sterotypes and misconceptions about SD's. Keep up the good work!

Thorn said...

To ReflexVE: You are either being contrary simply to be contrary or really having a reading comprehension issue. I said, very plainly, who defines. Not me, SOCIETY. It is branded into our laws. It is part and parcel of the collective conscious.

You are going to argue with me the point that the law doesn't specify, except in selected counties in Nevada and Rhode Island, that a handjob that is given by someone to someone else for a price is an act of prostitution?

I'm a retired cop Reflex and I can tell you that is a dog of an argument. Total non-winner.

You are going to further argue that it isn't pure common sense to realize that we live in a society of laws, and judgemental individuals that - when joined together as a society - have the ability to place us in circumstances we'd find less than pleasant?

All I am putting forth is that people involved in the things that we do are best off to acknowledge the obvious and act in such ways that give us the most latitude with the least amount of personal problems, while also keeping those we care about the most safe from the potential results of our actions.

Prudence, common sense, and responsibility are my watch words, RE. What are yours?

CJ: Read the above. You can define hand jobs any way you like. So can I. If I had my way ALL of this would be legal. *I* don't see anything wrong with it.

That doesn't mean I am so cock sure of *my* definitions that I think they'll replace society's. Nor am I silly enough to think that if I were found out I could thwart all the bad things that might happen for that knowledge becoming public by standing before the multitudes and preaching my definitions over theirs.

I'm quite sure "society" wouldn't give a crap about what I thought and would bury me under the weight of its judgement just as sure as if I agreed with them myself [which, again, I don't].

Just plain old common sense. Know what the people who have the power to effect your life think. Know what they can do to hurt you and what they can't. Know the laws. Know how to work AROUND them if you have to break them so YOU don't find yourself between the proverbial rock and the hard place.

Again just common sense, and being responsible for yourself and the potential damage you can do to others you care about - including yourself.

Anonymous said...

Thorn - Basically your being a jackass. You are attempting to box CJ into your personal moral interpretation while pretending to be ambivilent about it. People like you are dangerous, attempting to destroy individual's moral boundries by redefining what is what to them. And in my blunt opinion, you are effectively a pimp, attempting to 'turn' girls so you can use them for your advertised services.

Your story is bullshit. I highly doubt you are a former cop, a private investigator, or anything of the sort. Your background is ripped straight from the pages of cliched crime noir. I'm sure it gets you laid though, at least in internet-land.

Despite all of your semantic arguments I have yet to see you elucidate one reason why any of your reasoning ultimatly matters. Quite frankly nothing is going to happen here either way, not legally and not societally. CJ is what she is, and while some of us might like to see her do something we see as more useful with her other talents, that does not mean we have to denigrate what she does. Nor does it give us the right to pass judgement and catagorize her life in a manner designed to suit our sensibilities.

Yes, I know you claim that you are speaking for society. Well as a member of 'society' I can certainly state that you do not speak for me. And honestly if you'd really read her blog, you'd know that her clients have included plenty of members of the legal profession, if anyone considered what she did to be prostitution, she'd have been shut down long ago.

No one cares. Let it be already.

Thorn said...

To ReflexVE: Wow! I must have truly touched a nerve?

First off you can think anything you want, that doesn't make it so.

I am no more attempting to box CJ into anything than I am trying to life the Empire State Building. I too smart to think that is possible and wouldn't even if I could.

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about as far as Utopia Guide goes. It is a free wheeling, free speaking, forum for guys and gals and service providers of many types, including those similar to CJ, advertise there. These folks PAY UG to advertise to access its audience, just like any magazine. UG makes no money from their services, nor would we want to. So, my clueless soul, UG turns no one out. [What, you think because TV shows advertise in TV Guide that makes TV Guide a writer/producer of TV shows?]

As to my being a retired cop, I am what I say I am and if you don't like it or disagree, feel free. I don't care what you believe or not. If we bump into each other someday I'll show you my retirement ID if you want {LOL}.

As for your dispersions upon my motives, I write what I write because I choose to write it. Almost always that's because I think I have something to say. The value of that will be up to each and every reader who reads it. Ideas rise and fall of their own merit in the marketplace of public opinion. I'm cool with that.

I am not "speaking for society". I am observing and reporting what I see. I said certain things that are irrefutable though. I said under the laws of every state except Nevada [some counties] and Rhode Island paying for a hand-job is prostitution. That isn't speaking for you. Saying so just makes you sound clueless when I'm just reporting simple fact. You can look it up. Paid for happy endings are illegal almost everywhere.

I simply said knowing the laws of your state and knowing how people act and think is ALWAYS a good idea when placing yourself in a position where those things may impact negatively upon you. That this is common sense I state as an opinion. One I feel most reasonable people will agree with.

So, take a deep breath, ratchet down your blood pressure a few notches, and have a Merry Christmas. :)

Anonymous said...

Good for you. Your still being a jackass. You have yet to state *why* it matters. CJ has never pretended she has a legal defense. You keep accusing her of living in some fantasy world when she clearly is not. She can catagorize what she does any way she wishes, it does not make her delusional, or imply that she believes this is any sort of legal defense.

And yes, I know you are a shill for UG and other services. Glad your admitting that flat out. Wish you'd lose the phony background, if true it does nothing to enhance your credibility, if false it is simpy a tool to attempt to assert moral or intellectual superiority, something that is ridiculous on an internet forum. Basically it adds nothing to the discussion, but clearly is your attempt to assert yourself, and comes across as stupidly cliche.

Thorn said...

ReFlex said: "Your still being a jackass"; " know you are a shill for UG"; "you'd lose the phony background"; "your attempt to assert yourself, and comes across as stupidly cliche."


Where I come from such phrases are called ad hominem tactics. They are used by individuals who, when they can't refute the ideas being presented, attack the presenter instead.

They also, usually, signal the end of the debate because the person using the ad hominem tactics has run out of useful things to say.

I wish you well...