When materialism goes horribly wrong

[WorknMan]

I figured a forum called 'Diamonds and Tuxedos' would be a good place to post this

I've been reading threads on this site where a lot of guys have been dabbling in being 'sugar daddies' as an alternative to the hobby. So I went and looked at some profiles for 'sugar babies' and was quite disgusted by what I saw. It seems that a lot of them are putting themselves out there in order to get their hands on expensive jewelry and other useless shit. So, while being a sugar daddy might afford you the ability to get to know these ladies a little more personally than in the hobby, why would you want to?

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not inherently against materialism, which I define as buying stuff that you really don't need. For example, my parents recently spent over 40 grand on a new Infiniti, but that car has some pretty impressive tech inside of it that my lowly economy car could never dream of. Maybe you spend several hundred dollars more on a bed because it is more comfortable than a cheap one. I myself will soon be spending $3,000 on a new computer, because I do a lot of processor-intensive tasks, and a faster PC means that I get things done faster.

So to me, a lot of materialistic purchases make sense. But, spending hundreds of dollars on a handbag? Or $2,500 on a watch, which my stepmom recently did? I could buy a watch for $30 that has 10x the functionality as hers. If my wife had told me that she spent $2,500 on a watch, to me that would've translated to, "Honey, I just took $2,500 and wiped my ass with it!" Obviously, that wouldn't have been the case if she had bought it at a steep discount and could turn around and sell it for $3,000. But to wear? ARE YOU NUTS!?!?

Of course, I understand that guys are not immune to this either, but usually if we're guilty of it, it's because we're trying to attract attention to ourselves from women. It's kind of like how male peacocks grow these huge tail feathers for no other reason than to attract the opposite sex, even if doing so means it makes them easier prey. But then, you have these geeks who buy PCs who's cases light up like Christmas trees, which would probably scare away women more than anything, so that's probably indefensible.

So my question is, why? Is it simply because of status? Shouldn't we/couldn't we decide as a society that status has nothing to do with the size of the diamond on your finger, or whether the rims on your vehicle can spin while stationary? Since I don't understand any of it, part of me feels like I was simply born in the wrong period of time ...

[AbbyAmour]

But then, you have these geeks who buy PCs who's cases light up like Christmas trees, which would probably scare away women more than anything, so that's probably indefensible.

Yet another person unimpressed by the purple lights in my gaming rig. Le sigh.

I do not understand materialistic things such as watches, jewelry, purses... but I sure do love me my big house. I would also like to own a Lexus someday. For now, it's my toyota which I'm happy with. I hear they're made on the same belts at the factory.

[charlestudor2005]

Wealth is relative. About twenty years ago, my house burned to the ground and I lost everything. As usual, I was out of town at the time, so only had the 3-day change of clothes that I had traveled with.

You don't really know how LITTLE you need to get by when you've lost everything. Couple trips to Wal-Mart, and you have enough clothes to last a week...and that's all you need for clothing.

Talking about what you need and what you want are extremely different things. What you need are clothes, shelter and food. Everything other than that falls into the "want" category. What you need to get by is very limited.

Now, twenty years later I am very much aware of how little I need. It's a question I ask before purchasing anything: do I really NEED it (and the corollary question: am I willing to dust it for 5 years, lol)? The answer normally is that I do not. That doesn't mean I don't buy stuff I don't need; I do. But it also means that I take a pass on purchasing a lot, I repeat, a lot, of stuff.

The point is: we in the US have so much more than we need; we could do with a lot less and still live pretty high on the hog.

And have a lot more money to hobby.

[Guest053011]

Sugar babies are an interesting group. I've contacted a few and joined them for dinner, just to hear about their experiences. From what I can gather, they don't want to be considered "hookers" or "prostitutes" or "escorts" because all of that is beneath them.

However, they want luxury that is otherwise unattainable to them. They have less interest in using income to "build a life" and more in adding to their existing lives moments and items of shameless gluttonous pleasure.

For some people it really is about status. For others it's enjoying decadence.

Everyone has an idea of luxury. Whether something is a waste of money or not is defined by your personal income. If a 3k watch is outside your affordability, it's a waste of money. If you can easily afford it - then what makes it a waste? Getting a 3k watch isn't about how many functions it has: it's about doing one function really well. It's about old fashion engineering brilliance - and a watch is engineering brilliance, it's a work of art when made from hand crafted machinery. It's about fine quality pieces and the rarity of objects. You may value features, but others value other qualities.

Giving me a 3k watch would be a huge waste, I'd rather put that toward a mortgage or an infinite amount of other practical things, because I'm not of wealthy means. I can appreciate it's value, but owning one feels like a crime. However I do adore luxury and decadence.

In the parts of Asia I've visited, and the European cultures I am intimate with, people generally live in places where big houses and expensive cars aren't an option - there's no space. So instead they spend their money eating out, buying nice clothes, going on vacation. They spend their money on more small luxuries.

It was in Japan that I learned how the wonderful concept of simple everyday luxuries. Travel is not a big part of their lives, they're awkwardly placed in the world, culturally they are introverted and insular. However, when they have tea, that have luxuriously good tea. They may have a small home, but they have amazingly fine quality sheets, art, liquor and food. So rather then get more or bigger, they choose for fewer extremely fine quality things, and unusual/rare things.

We all have our definitions of luxury, we all salivate over something. Most of us find ways of including luxury and decadence in our lives. Anything has the potential for danger or harm when it becomes an obsession. All good things in moderation.

[Sweet Heather]

I think alot of it boils down to the constant bombardment of advertising that makes us feel that we need things like $3000 watches and handbags, $50,000 cars etc, when in reality we just want these things. I've tried to simplify and downsize my life in the last few years and it's alot less stressful. There is this Buddist saying that I can't remember exactly, but it says something like "Want is the root of all unhappiness". Probably true..

[Guest083011]

I've been dabbling in the SD/SB thing. Yes, some SBs want the expensive watches or shopping sprees the ones I have been with are much more realistic. They are covering their mortgage/rent, fixing a car, paying for school, etc. The shopping spree girls maybe supplementing their income and that's fine but in this day and age taking care of everyday life seems to be the norm.

So some recent examples.
One SB and I talked and emailed. She had a SD before that had taken care of her nicely, but they had gone separate directions. "In her face" right now is a $2k mortgage payment and she's out of work. She doesn't need a fancy watch. She felt I wasn't going to give her the financials she was in need of (correct). This was two weeks ago.

Monday, a young woman and I had chatted a bit (for a week or two) and opted to meet for coffee. We met. I brought her some roses and I thought we had a nice talk. At one point she says she drove up to Boston to meet a guy, in the first five minutes the guys says this isn't going to work and hands her $500. She was surprised he'd have her go all that distance and not want to continue. At almost one hour her phone alarm goes off and she was concerned with the parking meter. We go out, a quick peck and hug and away she goes. Um okay. A few minutes later she texts me saying we didn't talk financials (well if you hadn't been in such a hurry....) So she tells me she wants $1,100 per meeting. She did thank me for the roses in the text saying our numbers don't match. I texted back if there was a typo. Nope that's the number. I did ask her was I that repulsive and why was I $1.1k and Boston $500 was ok? She said I could find a girl on Craig's for $300. (hmmm, Craig's is closed and I bet I could get two or a doubles for $300 ). My final reply was that I did not know why she was being rude and nasty especially since I had been a gentleman throughout.

That afternoon I have a chat on my SD/SB site with an attractive woman. We go back and forth and get to the "discussion" (about money/fee/rate). She wants $4k. Huh? Twice in one day I'm thinking these girls think their private parts are made of gold. So another pass, "good luck in your search."

Which brings me around to another young lady two days. We chat a bit and hit "the discussion" again. Guess what, $100 is just fine as a per meeting fee. She used to be a dancer so it is not uncharted territory. She is married so needs to be discreet. Perfect for me. It turns out she is a really sweet nice person. We did a get to know you meeting. We going to work on a BCD adventure very soon.

Other SBs I've meet have needed daily things: a calculator for a kid, food, computer stuff, gas. They are real people and have a sexual awareness that is delightful (the $100 woman says she likes it a little rough! gotta get some soft rope or handcuffs! )

[WorknMan]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Everyone has an idea of luxury. Whether something is a waste of money or not is defined by your personal income. If a 3k watch is outside your affordability, it's a waste of money. If you can easily afford it - then what makes it a waste?

Well, speaking in terms of pure functionality, does the 3k watch do anything that my $30 watch doesn't, other than impressing members of the opposite sex? The watch itself is about three years old, and I've never had any problems with it keeping time or anything. So, it does everything I need it to do at 1% of the cost of the $3,000 alternative. And when the battery dies, I just pay $5 for a new one, and I'm good to go.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, even if I were as rich as Bill Gates, I still couldn't see myself paying that much for a watch, except maybe to get one with a heart rate monitor or something so that I could use it while jogging, or whatever. I'm sure if the 3k watch was hand made or whatever, it's probably an impressive piece of craftsmanship. But if it doesn't do anything that my current watch does, it's a waste of money, IMHO.

[charlestudor2005]

My watch broke about 3 years ago. I decided to rely on my cell to tell time since it is synced by the local cell towers and I never have to change the time when I switch time zones.

The only minor inconvenience was before I got a phone in which I could turn the phone reception on and off. When I boarded a plane, I had to turn the phone all the way off, and during the flight couldn't check the time. Now I have a phone with an airplane mode in it. Still allows me to check the time. And I don't have that annoying thing on my wrist.

However, having worn a watch for sooooooo long, I still glance at my wrist to tell time...even after 3 years.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

My watch broke about 3 years ago. I decided to rely on my cell to tell time since it is synced by the local cell towers and I never have to change the time when I switch time zones.

The only minor inconvenience was before I got a phone in which I could turn the phone reception on and off. When I boarded a plane, I had to turn the phone all the way off, and during the flight couldn't check the time. Now I have a phone with an airplane mode in it. Still allows me to check the time. And I don't have that annoying thing on my wrist.

However, having worn a watch for sooooooo long, I still glance at my wrist to tell time...even after 3 years.

Same thing happened to me, but it annoys me that my skin color (from beneath the watch and band) has forever after remained somewhat lighter and less hairy than the rest of my arm: almost like a tattoo - lol. Not only do I not wear a watch, I no longer carry a travel alarm when I travel - you just cannot trust those front desk clerks or those in-room alarm clocks to wake you up for those important meetings in the AM.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WorknMan

If my wife had told me that she spent $2,500 on a watch, to me that would've translated to, "Honey, I just took $2,500 and wiped my ass with it!" Obviously, that wouldn't have been the case if she had bought it at a steep discount and could turn around and sell it for $3,000. But to wear? ARE YOU NUTS!?!?

...

I hear ya man. I bought my gf a 5k watch that alarms at a quarter 'till bbj.

Dang thang is going off twice a day, not sure which of us will take that damn watch back first and get a more practical Timex!

[discreetgent]

(For you JB)

Hmm, is this like the discussion about why anyone would book a lady who charges 1000hr instead of a lady who charges 300hr ?

[ForumPoster]

Definitely some interesting observations.

On subject of WANT vs NEED

4 years ago I also had a fire and it also drastically changed my materialistic aspirations. Looks like best way to adjust materialistic attitude is to loose all you have

On Small Luxuries.

This actually has been my approach all along. I would much rather enjoy so called small luxuries than buy a big ticket item.

SD/SB

I think civvies going SB/SD route have different mentality than professional companions who at some point may choose to establish exclusive compensated arrangement.

I had been in civvie SD/SB relationship prior to becoming companion. I was not looking for one, but rather developed it with someone I was dating at the time. I was quiet capable of supporting myself but it was nice to experience activities and luxuries I could not afford on my own. What made that work was the fact that relationship was not based on $$$ to begin with.

As a provider I would have completely different approach to such arrangement. To provider being SB means replacing rather than supplementing income.

This thread reminds me .. I should probably see what of stuff I had aquired in last 4 years i really NEED vs what is just taking up space.

Lina

[Ansley]

DG, that is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Why would any man think that paying 700.00 more would be much better?

[seductivesarah]

I guess it depends on how you would look at a Sugar Daddy I have had a Sugar Daddy in my past he meant a lot to me and played an important role in my life as I did he. Its not about the jewelry or the bags or private jets or vacations it was more than that. It was someone who had more than you and was willing to share that lifestyle with you because you cared about them and they cared about you, all the glamour was just a bonus. Its nice to know that you have someone you can count on and that someone out there is making sure that your life has no worries. If a girl is just looking for someone to buy her shit she is a weak bitch who cant figure out how to get it on her own, but when someone cares about you and takes care of you and you take care of them then consider yourself lucky.

[Guest083011]

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

SD/SB
I had been in civvie SD/SB relationship prior to becoming companion. I was not looking for one, but rather developed it with someone I was dating at the time. I was quiet capable of supporting myself but it was nice to experience activities and luxuries I could not afford on my own. What made that work was the fact that relationship was not based on $$$ to begin with. Lina

Dear Lina,

What was the demarcation from boyfriend/girlfriend to SD/SB? By description it reads as a simple BF/GF with the BF having more liquidity. To me that's a real world relationship. All IMO.

What happened to this BF (if you don't mind me/us asking and if you'd rather not post we understand)?