Is It Wrong to Have Several Sugar Daddies?

Tue, 08/04/2015 - 08:14
Submitted by Betty Dodson

Dear Betty or anyone else that can help me,

I recently sent a question in but did not receive a response which is completely understandable. I know many questions get sent in. First of all, I am a new sugar baby and I have a few dilemmas. First off, the men I will potentially get intimate with are all married! They say their wife knows about it but how true could that really be? I need to know if it's truly wrong to get involved with married men. I have few options and most men aren't single. I'm in desperate need of financial support so I turn a blind eye to it..

Secondly, I'm afraid of contracting HIV & HPV. I never got the gardasil vaccine, so how do I know that their STI reports aren't faked by them just so they could sleep with me? I also have herpes type 2 and I tell every sex partner that so I'm not doing anything illegal. Lastly, is it wrong to have several sugar daddies? I feel like such an immoral WHORE! Please help me someone! I need guidance!!

And I'm muslim...

Dear C,

Your concerns are all legitimate. However, some of your questions can only be answered as you continue to be a sugar baby. Personally, I'm sorry this website wasn't available when I was a struggling art student. When I found out about it I recommended it to several young struggling women students. I sense they do a good job of screening potential clients for the sake of their business.

As for STI's the guys who sign up for this are far more concerned than you are about bringing home the clap to an unsuspecting wife. She would have him castrated! Even regular social dating carries some risk. So does getting out of bed every morning and leaving your apartment. Life is full of risks.That's what makes it so exciting and worth living.

As a Muslim I hope you ditch the head scarf. What a burden those nasty religious men put on their women. Time for a change is what I'd advise starting with YOU! I really object to all religions that are focused on controlling human sexuality especially when it come to women. Just don't fall in love with a client and do a good job of entertaining them. Sex will be the least of it as I understand. A lot of older successful men just want a pretty thing on their arm to show off around town at expensive restaurants. They are quite easy to manipulate with sweet talk that most all women have in our survival kits. So just enjoy some nice older man lavishing you with gifts and cash to ease your struggle.

This is not the usual advice you would get from more traditional women. But it is what I believe makes more sense than killing ourselves with part time low paying jobs as we struggle to put ourselves through school. Let common sense prevail.

Dr. Betty

Liberating women one orgasm at a time

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Practical Morals

Wed, 08/05/2015 - 06:17

From a practical perspective, if you've made the decision to become a sugarbaby then you've already worked out that more than one sugardaddy is required to make the finances work. There will be some girls (and it usually is young women in their late teens and early 20s) who strike lucky and find a very rich sugardaddy willing to pay a lot of money for sole attention but they are, like unicorns, exceedingly rare.

So if you're doing this for the money, then you're already committed to as many men as you can practically manage for the amount of money you need. This isn't a moral dilemma so much as a practical conclusion to a decision you've already made.

Since you have genital herpes, you won't be able to work full-time but rather will be limited to times without breakout lesions. This limits the amount of money and presumably the agencies that you can use since some will require medical test results etc. Obvously your concerns about their STDs will be mirrored by their concerns about you and your STDs. Both sets of concerns are valid.

If they're married and having sex with other people without their partners knowledge, I'd regard them as jerks but if there's any moral blame here, it lies squarely on their backs. You're not the one breaking promises.

So most of the practical questions or issues are easily addressed. The real question is whether or not you are comfortable with the morality of selling sex, and to state the obvious, whether you can afford to be uncomfortable with it given your financial needs and choices available to you.

My only "moral" judgement would be that it is no one's business but your business. No one has the right to judge your behaviour and actions, only you. Can you live with what you're doing? Given that you say you're feeling like an "immoral WHORE" already, then what answer are you looking for here? It seems pretty obvious that dodsonandross are the last place to find people throwing stones at sex workers so maybe you were just seeking validation and that's ok.

If you're looking for a reason to stop being a sugarbaby, laced in religious rhetoric, this is the last place to look.

But there are some practical reasons to think twice that you might also want to consider.

Being a sugarbaby is a job. Sugardaddies are clients who pay you in gifts etc to be the girlfriend they want you to be. A sugarbaby is a disposable commodity bought and paid for by a man. The emotional relationship is not real.  Some people will be able to manage this situation whilst others will struggle not to get emotionally involved. A sugarbaby will be asked to do many things and needs to be comfortable saying yes or assertive enough to walk away.

Some people will be able to maintain their sense of self and self-worth whatever they're asked to do, whatever their clients think of them and others will not.
Can you?

Can Junior Executives give whores a bad name?

Thu, 08/06/2015 - 00:11
feminist indignation (not verified)

Dear House North London Housewife,

     I heard this much the same way as you, "So if you're doing this for the money, then you're already committed to as many men as you can practically manage for the amount of money
you need. This isn't a moral dilemma so much as a practical conclusion to a decision you've already made."

          What I am hearing is C is contemplating taking up a profession because she needs money. This is perfectly awful reason to take up sex work or any other profession for that matter. But as a practical matter that's why we work - for the money. So the question is not should she
work it's what kind of work is she good at? People become doctors to make lots of money but if they are bad doctors or ill suited for the profession their clients pay a heavy price. In this example choosing medicine would have been immoral choice.

      So I'm hearing a different sort of question and that is am "I suited for sex work?" I guess I am guessing I'm hearing a lot of uncertainty from "C" and I'm guessing you are too. The sugar baby/daddy bothers me because it demotes someone taking care of someone else. And you point out this is a business transaction. So what "C" seems to be asking about is running a business v being an employee, as you put it "Being a sugarbaby is a job… A sugarbaby is
a disposable commodity bought and paid for…" And your discussion of a commodity does not sound that dissimilar from junior executives who are encouraged to buy large houses, join expensive clubs so even though they make six figure salaries they are financially very insecure and by design like a  "sugarbaby will be asked to do many things and needs to be comfortable saying yes or assertive enough to walk away."

      So the moral question is it not whether to sell connection/sex or say soda-pop for a living it is, Do employees "sugarbabies" or the junior executives have power equality to make moral choices within their respective industries? In these systems it's much harder to "maintain [a]
sense of self and self-worth whatever they're asked to do".

     If "C" wants to become a junior executive or do sex work and thinks she would be good at it she should also consider; how she wants to do it and under what system she wants to do it.

    Your ideas provoke consideration.    

Sugarbaby self-care

Thu, 08/06/2015 - 09:36

There have been several thoughtful responses to C's questions, yet I still find myself troubled. 'C'  says that she is in desperate need of money, is afraid of contracting an STD, is Muslim, and feels immoral pursuing sex work with older, well-off, married men. It seems to me that she has already largely anwered her own questions about what she would be doing to herself if she pursued this path.

There is much that she hasn't told us. If her queries are sincere, why does she need money so desperately? Does she have a drug habit? Is she a single mother with small children to support and can't find other work? Are there safer possibilities for earning money that she has overlooked? (Being an 'escort' is not safe and women have been murdered doing it.) People have turned to sex work when all other options for survival have failed them, but the sex workers I knew in my hospital career did not feel good about what they were doing. Even when their clients treated them relatively well, these women knew that they were being exploited and they hated it. C's strong misgivings hint that such a psychological outcome would be very likely for her as well. And while her married clients are the ones who are deceiving their partners, I would argue that there is something wrong with being a party to their deception. Personally, I can't see sexual intimacy as a commodity to be bought and sold like any other. Whatever her decision, I hope that C takes all necessary steps to protect herself, both physically and psychologically.

As respondents we're clueless, without guidance from "C"

Mon, 08/10/2015 - 11:13
feminist indignation (not verified)

     It is interesting to note that C's short post sparked about 7,000 words of 4 posts attempting to understand her 182 words. The attempts have four rather distinct characteristics.

     First respondents attempt to understand the story i.e. "First of all, I am a new sugar baby ….I also have herpes type 2 … And I'm muslim…. "

     Second respondents attempt to understand the "meaning" behind the story - the reason she is telling us the story the facts. It's the meaning that is important that others understand for the storyteller.

     Third is the respondents' attempt to check that their interpretation of her story and meaning what she wanted known. It's a reflection of 1) "the story" (facts) and 2) "the meaning" (needs, values, relationships, being of self and self within community) as
reflected back through the filters of the "respondents' subjective reality".

     And forth are attempts to honor the request for "guidance!! "

     These 4 attempts are all woven together and mixed up in the 7,000 words of the respondents. Sorting out the first three "to be understood" are most important for "C" and
impossible for the rest of us to do. In fact the only person that can do it is "C". As only she knows if her meaning is being received the way she wanted. And the only way to do that is for her to speak and let the listener's (Betty, North London House Wife, feminist indignation, and Patrick_R by trying yet again to get us to "understand her meaning" if WE DID NOT GET IT

     For example her meaning of saying "… I'm muslim" could mean as a religious person she recognizes the importance of sensuality and sexual connection as part of life devoted to the service of god. Or "C" could be a troll pocking fun at religion(s).

As respondents we're clueless, without guidance from "C"

Guidance from D&R's correspondents

Tue, 08/11/2015 - 07:21

Feminist indignation makes the point that we must all have a certain degree of trust when people make inquiries of Betty and Carlin. We largely have to take it on faith that these correspondents are sincere and truthful (if sometimes incomplete in the details that they provide). I'm sure that most who write in are sincerely seeking help. In a small number of cases, there has been good reason for doubt. For years there was a tradition in the US of university students having fun with America's leading 'agony aunts', Dear Abby and Ann Landers, by trying to come up with the most outrageous but convincing concocted dilemmas. This has no doubt happened here, too, and sometimes it might be difficult to tell the difference between truth and fabrication. Most of us are kind enough to give the person the benefit of the doubt most of the time. This reflects well on D&R, and when there are trolls here it reflects equally poorly on them.

!!! Many thanks Patrick_R for guessing !!!

Tue, 08/11/2015 - 09:29
feminist indignation (not verified)

     Thanks for reflecting back to me what you understood my meaning to be. It's something "C" has not done for any of us. I did make the comparison between someone real and someone fake that is the absolute fact of what was written. I did so as a rhetorical device to draw distinction of how easy it is to misunderstand the intention, the meaning, the reason; someone spoke.

     What I wanted heard was not at all what Patrick_R alluded too. Please let me try again to be understood. What I wanted known was how easy it is for the listener to misunderstand the meaning and intension with which the speakers speaks unless the listener reflects back their interpretation of the speaker's meaning. That's what Patrick_R did! That's the only way I can tell if I was heard and understood the way I wanted to be. In this case I was not. It's  refreshing and wonderful to know Patrick_R was attempting to hear what I wanted known!

     The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with "Cs" authenticity it had only to do with how easy it is to think we know instinctually, exactly, what the speaker meant because of our linguistic acculturation and subjective reality. We don't.

     The only way to know if the speaker is understood is to reflect back and ask them is this, what you wanted me to know? In essence that is what Patrick_R did.

     Look at the now over 7,000 words the respondents used to describe differently how each one of us heard "Cs" meaning and then offered  "advice" based our interpretation of "Cs" 182 words. None of the 4 of us know if we are even close to understanding what was really meant. Rhetorically that translates - we are so clueless, we don't know what is real and not real.

     Only "C" knows how well her meaning was received and understood. As listeners we are just guessing. Personally I am very grateful to Patrick_R for guessing wrong because it gave
me the opportunity contemplating more deeply about what I wanted known. I welcome the invitation and occasion to try again to be understood.

     Many thanks Patrick_R for guessing!

     Patrick, out of curiosity what was the essence of the meaning you received this time?

Praise for getting it wrong

Wed, 08/12/2015 - 22:36

Feminist indignation, thank you very much. Never have I received such appreciation for being so wrong!

I did see some of what you were saying in your first post. We have no idea whether our replies are helpful or not, or whether we've understood the original poster, without more feedback from her. When you used the word 'troll', you reminded me that a very few posts are not authentic and that's what I decided to focus upon. One hopes that C is a real, truthful person, but if not, she's not being respectful to D&R and its readers. I do see fabrications as a problem on a web site that is essentially based on trust.

I agree that we are guessing about the intent of some who post here, particularly when what they write is markedly incomplete or ambiguous. We could easily assume we understand C's situation, when it's quite possible that we construct an idea of C not in terms of who she is (we don't really know, do we?), but in terms of who we are. Maybe that's a caution about assuming that we understand more than we really do. Betty and Carlin do occasionally receive follow-up posts , and I wish there were more of them. We'd have a better idea then if we were on the right track.

Thanks + Guessing v. state of being -- Tolls and other musings

Thu, 08/13/2015 - 14:37
feminist indignation (not verified)

     Patrick_R, It is so nice to be heard and understood. Thank you for reflecting back what you heard me say yet again. It was delightful they way you used your words to explain my meaning! It gave me new insight into what I was attempting to explain. Thank you.

     One bit of house keeping of linguistic importance. And it has to do with these phrases, "being so wrong" and "for getting it wrong". It is possible to hear this as you are saying you were wrong as in a state of being. That it is a "state of wrongness" was part of your character. There is really no wrong or right when we guess; it's just a guess not a state of being -- of "righteousness" or "evil". It's rather to bad that we are trained to speak (write) clearly and thus understand exactly the speaker's meaning. The responsibility for understanding comes from
the listener to "guess" and the speaker to try again or say yes that's it.

     I did I think heard your point about the trolls, the way you wanted me too, but instead
of letting the conversation go to a discussion of trolls I wanted get my point across before we moved on. I wonder about the same sorts of trolls as you, I guess. People are all so different I always wonder if I'm reading a hypothetical, a real situation or something that is made up for the sake of devilment as with university students and the
[= 12.0pt]'agony aunts'.  [/][= 12.0pt]I'm guessing you think this latter is rear with D&R, which gives you satisfaction with the discourse here. I often wonder if there is no follow up from questioners because they are unaware of the post or because of some lack
of safety or connection within themselves and as community. Or maybe it's just not taught in school about reaching mutual understanding, which I think is very different from "agreeing to disagree". [/]

       I hear you wanted good solid conversation between real people discussing real things and
it worries you when there is the possibility of not having honest dialogue with
trust and integrity even when the participants are masked as they are here.

Trust on a public forum

Sun, 08/16/2015 - 09:13

Thanks once again, feminist indignation, for taking the time to be thoughtful. When I spoke of being 'wrong', I was just being a bit playful as I'm sure you could tell. But I see what you're saying: there is nothing blameworthy in not understanding someone as long as we're really trying to do so.

I do think we have to have a degree of basic trust in order to get along in our daily lives, and that includes communicating on an Internet forum. Most people here come across as sincere. But we all know that on the Internet as elsewhere, there are a few persons who are not sincere or even who take pathological pleasure in causing distress to other people or 'messing with their heads'. I try to extend basic trust in most circumstances (as I think that most of us do), while being aware that every once in a while, that trust is not justified.

Finally, we can only do our best to understand someone by interpreting their words through our experience and empathy, while keeping in mind that although we're trying, we could always be wrong. But we can over-think this process as well by guessing and second-guessing what someone is really trying to say, which does happen when we never hear again from the OP. Personally, I don't think we have to worry too much about this, as long as we have some humility and keep in mind that we are only fallible people attempting to help someone based on incomplete information and limited wisdom.


Sun, 08/16/2015 - 12:52

There are lots of reasons for enjoying the website. A big part of it is education - no matter how much we think we know there is always something new to find here, either in the archive topics or in the comments posted. There are fascinating posts here from people telling their stories from far outside my personal experience as well as from people who seem to be telling my own tale. Some of them make me laugh whilst others make me want to weep in frustration. The reasons why some of us post comments are probably equally varied. & ofcourse partly it's because of the interesting and engaging ideas and people we find here.

Some of the posts invite comment. Some reply to our comments and provide updates. Whether they are most obviously sincere or borderline troll and disruptive, there is usually an interesting conversation and idea to be found whatever our social, political, ethical or geographic background whether we agree or disagree. And sometimes it gets even more interesting when the discussion thread wanders off-topic.

This discussion is a good example jumping from the practical issues involved in sex work, through to the emotional and ethical personal issues and even further onto the idea FeministIndignation raised asking whether or not any individual can financially afford the morals imposed upon them by society whether in sex work or the office.

And that'd just the first part of the conversation, before you all get into talking about the difficulties of communicating, of being heard and understood in an on-line forum like this.

I hope that C found the answers she was looking for, whether it was a reason to stop or to continue down her path. Maybe one day she'll let us know how it all turned out.
Wishing her well for the journey! NLH

Reasons for coming here

Sun, 08/16/2015 - 15:32

NLH has reminded me that there are many reasons for visiting and posting here. First and foremost is the education to be found on D&R, which can't be found elsewhere. There really is always something new, and there are members who enjoy both discussing ideas and doing their best to offer support.

I hadn't thought of it this way before, but even if the occasional query isn't sincere that doesn't tell the whole story, because even the odd spurious question to Betty or Carlin could still generate a reply filled with information that's genuinely helpful to somebody. The sincerity of the answers may be much more important than the authenticity of every single question.

Q for NLH

Mon, 08/17/2015 - 05:14
johnjohnjohnjohn (not verified)


I enjoy reading your posts:)

You said "If they're married and having sex with other people without their partners knowledge, I'd regard them as jerks"

Is that necessarily true, all of the time? Or is it just in that context?

Last week my wife and I enjoyed our 38th wedding annversary. Mostly that time has been happy and content. However, she is a pain-racked invalid with neither the intertest in, nor capacity to enjoy, sex.

In all of our married years, I never looked elsewhere for enjoyment, but it crept up on me about 4 years ago.

I have no intention of telling my wife about it. Not because of guilt, but because it would hurt her terribly.

My girl keeps me sane and much more abvle to deal with the stresses which come with living with an invalid.

Does that make me a jerk?

Not being aggressive, just wondering...

Ans for johnjohnjohn

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 05:03

My comment meant to be very much of the context and as a reply to the original post where the author was questioning her own actions and morality as third party to an infidelity.

We are all responsible for our own actions, not those of other people.

& whilst there are always exceptions, my starting point for infidelity is that it would be wrong for me and for most people and that most people being unfaithful to their partners are being jerks. I've been there - I was a jerk, stupid, thoughtless and wrong - and lived through the consequences.

Whatever my intentions, we all react to questions and issues with a fair amount of personal baggage :it's much too easy to generalise and stereotype and as a result to judge other people rather than dealing with our own faults. I'm as guilty of this as anyone else and apologies if I've offended...

johnjohnjohn, You ask whether you're a jerk. You don't sound like a jerk. You sound like a loving, caring husband and partner. You sound like someone who is making the best of a difficult situation. In your posts on D&R you're funny, thoughtful, and very, very human. Wishing you only the best.

I'm muslim- Is symbolic of creating the conditions we have here

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 11:40
feminist indignation (not verified)

     There is something extremely celebratory about the interactions within people, between people and as community in this tread. There is the reality of the difficult lifes we live, live attempting to get our needs met in concert with others so dear and not so dear and how that
affects our well being and our sense of well being within the context of other's well-being.

     The way this group of respondents embraces each other and shows our humanity in the best way we can speak and understand, only to be then moved and transformed by someone else's doing the same is really remarkable. For me it is the signature of people being dependent on each other and most importantly being there for each other. We have created the conditions, the environment in this thread where that is logical.

     I only wish I understood the meaning of johnjohnjohnjohn and North London House Wife better but what integrity of being asked to be heard and hearing. It's so easy in the punitive world to miss what love for our fellow human beings does for community and how with compassion we can move forward in harmony as disjointed as we are without resorting to the punitive qualities of vengeance and shame.

      At least it is for me and I'm guessing "C" saying "And I'm muslim..." [= 12.0pt]Is
symbolic of asking to create the conditions we have so done, here.[/]

Thanks for that

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 23:22

Having been condemned by some (including getting fired for "gross misconduct" over my affair), your words are lovely:)

And NLH, you know the worst experience of my life?

Fri, 08/21/2015 - 07:14

As a result of my affair at work, not only was I sacked, I was painted as a sexual predator. "Obviously you can't be trusted around women".

As of now, 38 years happily married. One solitary beautiful, helpful "affair"

Why are we so quick to condemn?

Hi feminist indignation

Fri, 08/21/2015 - 08:02

Thanks for your words.

Maybe you're saying that life isn't clear cut and black/white. And it sure isn't!

This site is beautiful. We can say what we think and relate our experiences, troubles and problems, without being shouted at and criticised, unlike "out there"

I wish you love and joy

To hear what "wants" understood is to know someone's truth.

Fri, 08/21/2015 - 14:25
feminist indignation (not verified)


That has been my experience that life is not clear-cut at all. I had no idea I was speaking in a way that would spark what it did in you. And thank you for saying what you did as I feel you understood what meaning I wanted known. Feedback is the only way people have of knowing they were understood.

I guess you want it known how hard it is for people to take care of themselves, and it is something we really must do before we can extend care to others even those who we love most dearly, or people who are our source of support, "our attachment anchor" from whence we gather strength to go out into the world. I'm guessing it must be difficult to be judged as wrong when all you have tried to do is take care of those who mean the most to you, put food on the table and take care of yourself so you can take care of those that take care of you and support you. I think I'm hearing both of them.

It is rather to bad that your work place had not created an environment to make it more likely to hear what pain your affair caused them and to make it more likely to hear the good reasons you did what you did and somehow out of that make it more likely, to find a way forward in support of each other's humanity.