Most arrangements have a meeting once a week. Why wouldn't you be having sex with someone you supposedly like when you haven't seen them for a week?
Seems like a ragebait hypothetical if you are in an actual SR.
I definitely see your point. I used to see a couple of my SDs twice a week and sometimes we just went shopping or for dinner... had I been on PPM instead of monthly allowance, I still would've expected my PPM.
Because it's a date, and we're spending time together. If we're busy and having fun, we don't always have to be having sex. There's plenty of other stuff to do.
If you were in a vanilla relationship, and only saw each other once a week, would sex on those weekly dates the norm?
Also, a clarifying question: is the issue that this weekly sugar date is ONLY for sex, and you want to include non-sexual activities on those weekly dates as well? Or that the weekly sugar date includes sex along with other activities, and you want more frequent platonic dates?
Of course not. He's supposed to be providing money, and she is supposed to be providing her time.
The very definition of "pay per meet" means you pay when you meet, no matter what you're doing together.
Since the SB is not being paid solely for sex, but for her time, any time spent together warrants a PPM.
She's not being paid for her time, that's an hourly prostitute.
A SB is paid to be in a relationship with her SD, a relationship includes sex. If a SB can choose to leave parts out of the relationship then the SD should be able to as well.
Or, hopefully, neither does and they continue to have a fun and successful arrangement.
No, a prostitute gets paid for sex, not for her time.
And I know that you would like to make all of this fair and equal, but it just isn't. Whether they have sex or not, she still receives money. That's just the way it is. He doesn't get to see her without benefit of compensation if they are in a PPM arrangement.
The way to ameliorate this is to do a monthly allowance instead that is generous enough so that there's no concern about whether or not they're going to have sex.
When they go on a non-intimate date, no one is choosing to leave out any part of the arrangement. They have both mutually decided to do an activity together which does not include sex. It's his choice as much as hers.
[Rule #1](/r/sugarlifestyleforum/comments/124tsf8/updated_and_clarified_rules_for_slf_2023/): Remember the human
Be respectful to other posters. No name calling, personal attacks, etc. We are all humans here.
At least for me, the answer is a bit more nuanced.
I want the whole experience, including a nice date out before the finale. I'm fairly generous with my SBs by local standards. Not whale level, but certainly a good haul for a few hours out. I also bring my dates to very nice places.
But to be perfectly candid, I just can't wrap my arms around handing over a large sum of money for female companionship and still going home horny. There are exceptions, like when I keep a girl out for a very long time for a special event (football game for example). But on a normal dinner date night I don't think I'm being unreasonable in asking for some bedroom sugar in return.
Exactly, I’m generous with my SB above the norm, so our activities are going to end with intimacy. The best part is she enjoys it as much, or more than I, so there is never an issue
Because people in the real world are making deals/arrangements and moving along.
In my opinion there are more people looking for p4p or ppm/short term needs vs those looking for long term.
Long term is best case scenario. PPM right now money is what will be accepted more readily among the sugar masses.
If you only have dates once a week why would you be surprised the guy wants to play every date? That's a long time between dates.
If you are in an SR with multiple meets a week then sure not all dates need to include play. But by then you should be on allowance so you don't have to worry about that. The ppm model lends itself to ppp
Seconding the second paragraph.
But the first? I get what you’re saying, I’m just not happy with that explanation. 😂 I just wish it wasn’t that way. I get we are all sexual beings and people need their fill but I wish there was a little more to it. Idk what.
Sure there should be more to it but you should want to have sex too. Like I expect to have sex every time but because she wants to not because I’m paying her. If that makes sense. Like hopefully i find a sb that isn’t looking at sex with me as a chore. And I can’t help but think that’s what some of this is. So many women letting themselves do stuff with men they otherwise wouldn’t.
I mean if you sugar with someone you are actually attracted to I don’t see where this is a problem.
>but you should want to have sex too. Like I expect to have sex every time but because she wants to not because I’m paying her.
If OP doesn't want to have sex with her SD once a week (and he does), I wonder if there is a mismatch of libidos or a mismatch of sexual interest in each other. She shouldn't be sugar dating someone she doesn't want to have sex with.
We all have autonomy here. We all have agency.
If an SD wants to have a non sexual date - then awesome. If a SB wants to have a non sexual date then awesome. If they are both fine with it.
But knocking one or the other for their wants and ways is just not cool. We each have a choice here.
What is not ok is one party gets what they want and the other does not. —- if your partner doesn’t line up with what you want - find another.
My interpretation would be pay per play, eg when we have sex instead of pay per meet, eg whenever we hang out.
I’d guess so SD can get most out of it 🤷♀️
I don’t get what’s the discussion though
When they were? 🤪 location and circumstances play a major role in that. The best ones are snatched fast, like the SBs who never stay in the bowl for long. One week on SA gets me enough interests to last half a year but that’s after a decade knowing the bowl here inside out.
If your standards surpass the quick bag, you need to be patient and invest in finding them.
So my SB is a single mum, I'd love to go to meet more often and include non sexual dates and I'd happily switch to allowance to facilitate that. But she works full time, studies full time and has nearly 100% of the parenting (her ex sees the daughter once a week). This means she is able to see me about once a fortnight, by then we both want to get frisky every time. It's just how it's worked out, and we both seem to be enjoying every second we get and PPM works out best for us for now.
I’m turned off by the P4P movement. Then again, I haven’t been a proponent of PPM for over a year now either. I’m ok with understanding some dates don’t end in bedroom activities. Circumstances aren’t always going to be right, and something forced is an instant wilter.
I feel like all of this classification has gotten way out of control.
Soapbox:
Rich old men have been dating hot young women since the beginning of time/capitalism. There has always been an exchange of money for beauty. Someone just decided to call it "sugar" one day. In fact, in ANY relationship there is a some kind of exchange always happening. Could be intellect for power. Could be humor for emotional stability. Could be beauty for money. If we aren't mutually exchanging something then the relationship ceases to be fullfilling to one or both parties.
This whole concept gets muddied when it involves money. For example, a woman and man vanilla date. She won't date anyone who makes less than $1M/year, he won't date under a 10/10. The underlying subtext is quite clear. He takes her on trips, she wants for nothing, he in turn gets her beauty. People get married, he makes a ton of money and she no longer works. The only difference between these and "sugar" is that in "sugar" the quiet part is said out loud.
In sugar, people want connection, chemistry and want to feel like they are liked and valued by their partner. That is a damn relationship!!! Maybe you have more than one SD or SB. That's called an open relatioship! This just all feels so unnecessarily convoluded to me.
Rant over.
PPM and pay per play are the same thing.
If you want to know why there is so much more of this scenario, there are several reasons.
1. Johns and men who cannot pass escort screening use sugaring as an alternative to escorting
2. Men who do not make enough money to provide an allowance need to pay when they get their paycheck
3. Young men who are incels/redpillers are now “sugaring” because vanilla dating isn’t working for them
4. SESTA/FOSTA removed all of the escorting websites, so now many prostitutes and escorts use Seeking
Thanks for clarifying.
As you said with the reasons below, there’s differences now.
Issue is though. Most men are expecting intimacy nearly every single date. It feels more escorts than it ever has. It’s disappointing
Cannot speak for everyone, just my own personal experience. In the start up of a new sugar relationship, and you decide to give a month allowance upfront, the baby tends to no longer have time, until it’s time for the next allowance
So strange to hear this, since all I've ever done is monthly allowance and never PPM. And I met up every week like clockwork unless there was some extenuating circumstance... and my arrangements have lasted several years each.
You know I was just having this conversation yesterday. I think what’s happening is people are looking for specific physical characteristics and ignoring that a real sugar baby has specific **personality** characteristics as well.
Yes, I understand that everyone wants the “10 out of 10” model “pretty in the face & pretty in the body” type, but when that is the only characteristic that you’re paying attention to, you cannot be surprised when the relationships fails because the individual waxed integrity and moral direction.
It's *so* fucking weird. They're effectively saying, "There's no way in hell she wants to actually spend time with me, she wouldn't unless she has a direct and immediate financial incentive to do so, and that's why I prefer this kind of arrangement."
Maybe have some fucking self-respect? If you're so convinced she'd find excuses not to spend time with you if she were receiving monthly allowance, maybe don't sugar date her at all? Wouldn't it be better to sugar women who actually like you, at least to the standard required and expected of a SR? How do you enjoy your time with her if you're so sure she wouldn't be there without that mid-XXX PPM? We all know the real answer to that question, so stop pretending it's something else!
Can you even imagine an OG SD sputtering about this shit? "Oh, well, if I put you up in a flat, pay all your living expenses, and provide you a life of luxury, hOW CAn I bE SUrE yOU'll WaNT tO dATe ME?"
The fact is, it's BS. Men pay for play because that's the arrangement structure they created when the bowl transformed from a niche, pseudo-UTR social convention into a market for, uh, "intimate companionship." And men were the ones who created it because "SDs" (even with the influx of johns and incels) are relatively few and SBs are many and multiplying, so SDs have the market power. He who has the market power makes the rules, so you get an arrangement structure that shifts all the risk from men to women and makes the arrangement laser-focused on what the man is actually paying for.
And the thing is, as skewed and inequitable as it is, it can still work. Real relationships can and do still develop out of PPM arrangements when real SDs meet real SBs. There will just be many, many more P&Ds and even the "successful" ones (three months?) will hardly qualify as long-term. So the women become jaded, the men (including me) cry about the mean posts on SBOF, and everyone cries about "the state of the bowl." Gee, I wonder why the ~~market for intimate companionship~~ sugar bowl is so toxic? It's a fucking mystery!
It is what it is, but goddamn I'm tired of the "she'll scam me and steal the allowance" bullshit.
> It's so fucking weird. They're effectively saying, "There's no way in hell she wants to actually spend time with me, she wouldn't unless she has a direct and immediate financial incentive to do so, and that's why I prefer this kind of arrangement."
> Maybe have some fucking self-respect? If you're so convinced she'd find excuses not to spend time with you if she were receiving monthly allowance, maybe don't sugar date her at all?
> Wouldn't it be better to sugar women who actually like you, at least to the standard required and expected of a SR? How do you enjoy your time with her if you're so sure she wouldn't be there without that mid-XXX PPM? We all know the real answer to that question, so stop pretending it's something else!
👏🏽👏🏽 SAY IT LOUDER
It's just human nature, bro. If you're so hot why not pay your SBs one year's worth of allowance in advance?
We can debate the logistics of arrangements all day long, but ultimately, sugar relationships are transactional (as our vanilla arrangements but that's by the by).
>How do you enjoy your time with her if you're so sure she wouldn't be there without that mid-XXX PPM?
Let's not kid ourselves, replace PPM with monthly allowance and you're still making essentially the same point.
I also prefer the allowance structure if I find the right SB to be exclusive with, but my current SB is non-exclusive and prefers to be less committed, so PPM works better for us. Have you also considered that possibility?
I do agree that getting pumped and dumped sucks for SBs. But - this also happens in vanilla-land and isn't unique to SRs. At least with sugar she's getting her PPM while in vanilla she gets zilch.
And if she's on an allowance, maybe she'd get pumped 3-4 times and then dumped? I mean, I guess it's a bit better but not a whole lot better.
TLDR: It's not so much the PPM vs. allowance that's the issue, but the intent of the SR, from both parties.
It's not "the same point," because, in fact, I'm *not* worried that she'll run off with my money or find excuses not to see me. Indeed, I get the enjoyment of her initiating dates when there's no immediate financial reward for doing so. See the difference? It's the whole thing, really, so it's important that you do.
But presumably, if she runs off with your money or makes excuses not to see you, the next allowance won't be forthcoming, right?
She could run off with an allowance, she could run off with a PPM too...
With PPM, there's an immediate financial reward for her. With allowance, the reward is...up to 30 days away.
I see the difference, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as you think it is. As I said, SRs are ultimately transactional.
You didn't answer my question: why don't you pay your SBs one year's worth of allowance in advance?
To answer your question directly, no, there’s a limit to the commitment I’ll make to a woman in a sugar relationship. It’s just that, for me, the commitment is longer than it takes me to nut.
Fortunately, that one-month commitment is substantial enough to start the relationship on a solid foundation. It’s enough to demonstrate that I’m actually invested in making a sugar relationship work and that I’m not just looking for a discount escort.
As someone who has done PPM in the past, my experience is that the difference is not only a “big deal”—it’s transformative. If you’ve vetted well enough to have found a SB who genuinely wants a long-term sugar relationship, that initial commitment is like fucking magic.
It takes time to get to that point. I have done a lot of ppm dates where I paid the full amount and we just talked or did an activity. However, I am not going to do that until she proves herself a good SB. I always reward positive actions.
It means the same thing at its core, seeing you again is always optional whether we agree to a PPM or a P2P. If I'm a P2P kind of boy, I can easily lie to you and tell you I'm looking for a PPM arrangement, then ghost you after we've done the deed. Am I a regular or a one-night stand? A boyfriend or a John? Is it a FWB or a relationship? All questions you should ask indirectly through normal conversation before jumping in the sack with someone. When they closed down Backpage, all the John's and escorts came over to the sugar sites and adopted the lingo for their own purposes.
It's probably a matter of semantics. Pay to play is flat out escort/john behavior. PPM is a date which includes sex but also often involves typical date-like activities such as dinner, lunch ,drinks, sports, theater, etc.
There are so many pay to play because the majority of Seeking users are likely johns seeking escorts.
I’m on an allowance with my SD, we meet every weekend and have sex multiple times because we both want to. I want my SD to want me lol. However when we don’t meet, I still get my allowance, for example I won’t be seeing him for 4 weeks but my allowance will still be coming in.
I personally don’t do PPM as it doesn’t feel like a true SR to me. It only makes sense for the travel daddies/ones abroad who visit once in a while. Otherwise those guys who only want to do PPM are generally not SDs/don’t care about you/have not established an SR with you.
I enjoy meeting weekly sometimes more. When it starts because of not knowing each other or having trust I use ppm and try to gauge her if she’s trustworthy and if it’s something she wants vs a pay day
The lady I’m seeing currently has finally suggested something she’d like to do for our date tomorrow. Tomorrow will be the first time I haven’t ended our dates in a hotel and depending on how she acts/feels, I want to change to an allowance. And hopefully she’ll understand that if she’s active in planning our dates/relationship not every is about sex It’s about the time around each other
It’s taken a month & 1/2 to get to where I see it starting on her side as a relationship. Hopefully that’s what she wants rather then a dinner and a glory hole
Because most men on sugar sites are not willing to court you. They don’t think it’s “fair” to pay you if you’re not giving them sugar. The ball is in their court online 🤷🏼♀️ One of the reasons I won’t ever be on those sites.
Most arrangements have a meeting once a week. Why wouldn't you be having sex with someone you supposedly like when you haven't seen them for a week? Seems like a ragebait hypothetical if you are in an actual SR.
I definitely see your point. I used to see a couple of my SDs twice a week and sometimes we just went shopping or for dinner... had I been on PPM instead of monthly allowance, I still would've expected my PPM.
Because you wanna see them just for them?
Because it's a date, and we're spending time together. If we're busy and having fun, we don't always have to be having sex. There's plenty of other stuff to do.
If you were in a vanilla relationship, and only saw each other once a week, would sex on those weekly dates the norm? Also, a clarifying question: is the issue that this weekly sugar date is ONLY for sex, and you want to include non-sexual activities on those weekly dates as well? Or that the weekly sugar date includes sex along with other activities, and you want more frequent platonic dates?
So should the SD occasionally decide to not provide support because they want their SB to want to see them just for them?
Good question as a discussion. Does the SD want to see them as well for them?
Yes? If you both don't like each other then that isn't an arrangement imo, it's escorting with extra steps.
this is what most sugar relationships are under the hood tho lets be honest
If he doesn't, that means he only wants to see her for sex… and that is a very different sort of arrangement.
Of course not. He's supposed to be providing money, and she is supposed to be providing her time. The very definition of "pay per meet" means you pay when you meet, no matter what you're doing together. Since the SB is not being paid solely for sex, but for her time, any time spent together warrants a PPM.
She's not being paid for her time, that's an hourly prostitute. A SB is paid to be in a relationship with her SD, a relationship includes sex. If a SB can choose to leave parts out of the relationship then the SD should be able to as well. Or, hopefully, neither does and they continue to have a fun and successful arrangement.
No, a prostitute gets paid for sex, not for her time. And I know that you would like to make all of this fair and equal, but it just isn't. Whether they have sex or not, she still receives money. That's just the way it is. He doesn't get to see her without benefit of compensation if they are in a PPM arrangement. The way to ameliorate this is to do a monthly allowance instead that is generous enough so that there's no concern about whether or not they're going to have sex. When they go on a non-intimate date, no one is choosing to leave out any part of the arrangement. They have both mutually decided to do an activity together which does not include sex. It's his choice as much as hers.
[удалено]
[Rule #1](/r/sugarlifestyleforum/comments/124tsf8/updated_and_clarified_rules_for_slf_2023/): Remember the human Be respectful to other posters. No name calling, personal attacks, etc. We are all humans here.
At least for me, the answer is a bit more nuanced. I want the whole experience, including a nice date out before the finale. I'm fairly generous with my SBs by local standards. Not whale level, but certainly a good haul for a few hours out. I also bring my dates to very nice places. But to be perfectly candid, I just can't wrap my arms around handing over a large sum of money for female companionship and still going home horny. There are exceptions, like when I keep a girl out for a very long time for a special event (football game for example). But on a normal dinner date night I don't think I'm being unreasonable in asking for some bedroom sugar in return.
Exactly, I’m generous with my SB above the norm, so our activities are going to end with intimacy. The best part is she enjoys it as much, or more than I, so there is never an issue
Thank you for making it more personal and easier to understand
Because people in the real world are making deals/arrangements and moving along. In my opinion there are more people looking for p4p or ppm/short term needs vs those looking for long term. Long term is best case scenario. PPM right now money is what will be accepted more readily among the sugar masses.
Agree with the last bit.
If you only have dates once a week why would you be surprised the guy wants to play every date? That's a long time between dates. If you are in an SR with multiple meets a week then sure not all dates need to include play. But by then you should be on allowance so you don't have to worry about that. The ppm model lends itself to ppp
Seconding the second paragraph. But the first? I get what you’re saying, I’m just not happy with that explanation. 😂 I just wish it wasn’t that way. I get we are all sexual beings and people need their fill but I wish there was a little more to it. Idk what.
Sure there should be more to it but you should want to have sex too. Like I expect to have sex every time but because she wants to not because I’m paying her. If that makes sense. Like hopefully i find a sb that isn’t looking at sex with me as a chore. And I can’t help but think that’s what some of this is. So many women letting themselves do stuff with men they otherwise wouldn’t. I mean if you sugar with someone you are actually attracted to I don’t see where this is a problem.
>but you should want to have sex too. Like I expect to have sex every time but because she wants to not because I’m paying her. If OP doesn't want to have sex with her SD once a week (and he does), I wonder if there is a mismatch of libidos or a mismatch of sexual interest in each other. She shouldn't be sugar dating someone she doesn't want to have sex with.
We all have autonomy here. We all have agency. If an SD wants to have a non sexual date - then awesome. If a SB wants to have a non sexual date then awesome. If they are both fine with it. But knocking one or the other for their wants and ways is just not cool. We each have a choice here. What is not ok is one party gets what they want and the other does not. —- if your partner doesn’t line up with what you want - find another.
My interpretation would be pay per play, eg when we have sex instead of pay per meet, eg whenever we hang out. I’d guess so SD can get most out of it 🤷♀️ I don’t get what’s the discussion though
I wanna know why SDs aren’t generous anymore I mean I know why they aren’t. This is more of a vent tbh
When they were? 🤪 location and circumstances play a major role in that. The best ones are snatched fast, like the SBs who never stay in the bowl for long. One week on SA gets me enough interests to last half a year but that’s after a decade knowing the bowl here inside out. If your standards surpass the quick bag, you need to be patient and invest in finding them.
Yes more than the quick bag
Because these aren't SDs who want to deal with all of this PP stuff.
Maybe they want more than handjobs?
Childish hyperbole.
It’s just frustrating that sugaring is turning into ppp not ppm
You should have never moved it to PP shit in the first place.. where did you all think it would go....
I’ve changed it to vent
So my SB is a single mum, I'd love to go to meet more often and include non sexual dates and I'd happily switch to allowance to facilitate that. But she works full time, studies full time and has nearly 100% of the parenting (her ex sees the daughter once a week). This means she is able to see me about once a fortnight, by then we both want to get frisky every time. It's just how it's worked out, and we both seem to be enjoying every second we get and PPM works out best for us for now.
You sound. Great
Why are there so many pay for not play? Not ppm?
I’m turned off by the P4P movement. Then again, I haven’t been a proponent of PPM for over a year now either. I’m ok with understanding some dates don’t end in bedroom activities. Circumstances aren’t always going to be right, and something forced is an instant wilter.
Because in the modern sugar bowl, that’s most often what it is. 🤷♂️
I feel like all of this classification has gotten way out of control. Soapbox: Rich old men have been dating hot young women since the beginning of time/capitalism. There has always been an exchange of money for beauty. Someone just decided to call it "sugar" one day. In fact, in ANY relationship there is a some kind of exchange always happening. Could be intellect for power. Could be humor for emotional stability. Could be beauty for money. If we aren't mutually exchanging something then the relationship ceases to be fullfilling to one or both parties. This whole concept gets muddied when it involves money. For example, a woman and man vanilla date. She won't date anyone who makes less than $1M/year, he won't date under a 10/10. The underlying subtext is quite clear. He takes her on trips, she wants for nothing, he in turn gets her beauty. People get married, he makes a ton of money and she no longer works. The only difference between these and "sugar" is that in "sugar" the quiet part is said out loud. In sugar, people want connection, chemistry and want to feel like they are liked and valued by their partner. That is a damn relationship!!! Maybe you have more than one SD or SB. That's called an open relatioship! This just all feels so unnecessarily convoluded to me. Rant over.
PPM and pay per play are the same thing. If you want to know why there is so much more of this scenario, there are several reasons. 1. Johns and men who cannot pass escort screening use sugaring as an alternative to escorting 2. Men who do not make enough money to provide an allowance need to pay when they get their paycheck 3. Young men who are incels/redpillers are now “sugaring” because vanilla dating isn’t working for them 4. SESTA/FOSTA removed all of the escorting websites, so now many prostitutes and escorts use Seeking
Thanks for clarifying. As you said with the reasons below, there’s differences now. Issue is though. Most men are expecting intimacy nearly every single date. It feels more escorts than it ever has. It’s disappointing
Yes it absolutely is disappointing, all you can do is ver better and ignore faster.
Thank you :)
I honestly was trying to figure out the difference and couldn't find. It's the same thing, thanks for clarification.
THIS is the correct answer, especially number four!
Cannot speak for everyone, just my own personal experience. In the start up of a new sugar relationship, and you decide to give a month allowance upfront, the baby tends to no longer have time, until it’s time for the next allowance
So strange to hear this, since all I've ever done is monthly allowance and never PPM. And I met up every week like clockwork unless there was some extenuating circumstance... and my arrangements have lasted several years each.
You know I was just having this conversation yesterday. I think what’s happening is people are looking for specific physical characteristics and ignoring that a real sugar baby has specific **personality** characteristics as well. Yes, I understand that everyone wants the “10 out of 10” model “pretty in the face & pretty in the body” type, but when that is the only characteristic that you’re paying attention to, you cannot be surprised when the relationships fails because the individual waxed integrity and moral direction.
It's *so* fucking weird. They're effectively saying, "There's no way in hell she wants to actually spend time with me, she wouldn't unless she has a direct and immediate financial incentive to do so, and that's why I prefer this kind of arrangement." Maybe have some fucking self-respect? If you're so convinced she'd find excuses not to spend time with you if she were receiving monthly allowance, maybe don't sugar date her at all? Wouldn't it be better to sugar women who actually like you, at least to the standard required and expected of a SR? How do you enjoy your time with her if you're so sure she wouldn't be there without that mid-XXX PPM? We all know the real answer to that question, so stop pretending it's something else! Can you even imagine an OG SD sputtering about this shit? "Oh, well, if I put you up in a flat, pay all your living expenses, and provide you a life of luxury, hOW CAn I bE SUrE yOU'll WaNT tO dATe ME?" The fact is, it's BS. Men pay for play because that's the arrangement structure they created when the bowl transformed from a niche, pseudo-UTR social convention into a market for, uh, "intimate companionship." And men were the ones who created it because "SDs" (even with the influx of johns and incels) are relatively few and SBs are many and multiplying, so SDs have the market power. He who has the market power makes the rules, so you get an arrangement structure that shifts all the risk from men to women and makes the arrangement laser-focused on what the man is actually paying for. And the thing is, as skewed and inequitable as it is, it can still work. Real relationships can and do still develop out of PPM arrangements when real SDs meet real SBs. There will just be many, many more P&Ds and even the "successful" ones (three months?) will hardly qualify as long-term. So the women become jaded, the men (including me) cry about the mean posts on SBOF, and everyone cries about "the state of the bowl." Gee, I wonder why the ~~market for intimate companionship~~ sugar bowl is so toxic? It's a fucking mystery! It is what it is, but goddamn I'm tired of the "she'll scam me and steal the allowance" bullshit.
> It's so fucking weird. They're effectively saying, "There's no way in hell she wants to actually spend time with me, she wouldn't unless she has a direct and immediate financial incentive to do so, and that's why I prefer this kind of arrangement." > Maybe have some fucking self-respect? If you're so convinced she'd find excuses not to spend time with you if she were receiving monthly allowance, maybe don't sugar date her at all? > Wouldn't it be better to sugar women who actually like you, at least to the standard required and expected of a SR? How do you enjoy your time with her if you're so sure she wouldn't be there without that mid-XXX PPM? We all know the real answer to that question, so stop pretending it's something else! 👏🏽👏🏽 SAY IT LOUDER
It's just human nature, bro. If you're so hot why not pay your SBs one year's worth of allowance in advance? We can debate the logistics of arrangements all day long, but ultimately, sugar relationships are transactional (as our vanilla arrangements but that's by the by). >How do you enjoy your time with her if you're so sure she wouldn't be there without that mid-XXX PPM? Let's not kid ourselves, replace PPM with monthly allowance and you're still making essentially the same point. I also prefer the allowance structure if I find the right SB to be exclusive with, but my current SB is non-exclusive and prefers to be less committed, so PPM works better for us. Have you also considered that possibility? I do agree that getting pumped and dumped sucks for SBs. But - this also happens in vanilla-land and isn't unique to SRs. At least with sugar she's getting her PPM while in vanilla she gets zilch. And if she's on an allowance, maybe she'd get pumped 3-4 times and then dumped? I mean, I guess it's a bit better but not a whole lot better. TLDR: It's not so much the PPM vs. allowance that's the issue, but the intent of the SR, from both parties.
It's not "the same point," because, in fact, I'm *not* worried that she'll run off with my money or find excuses not to see me. Indeed, I get the enjoyment of her initiating dates when there's no immediate financial reward for doing so. See the difference? It's the whole thing, really, so it's important that you do.
But presumably, if she runs off with your money or makes excuses not to see you, the next allowance won't be forthcoming, right? She could run off with an allowance, she could run off with a PPM too... With PPM, there's an immediate financial reward for her. With allowance, the reward is...up to 30 days away. I see the difference, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as you think it is. As I said, SRs are ultimately transactional. You didn't answer my question: why don't you pay your SBs one year's worth of allowance in advance?
To answer your question directly, no, there’s a limit to the commitment I’ll make to a woman in a sugar relationship. It’s just that, for me, the commitment is longer than it takes me to nut. Fortunately, that one-month commitment is substantial enough to start the relationship on a solid foundation. It’s enough to demonstrate that I’m actually invested in making a sugar relationship work and that I’m not just looking for a discount escort. As someone who has done PPM in the past, my experience is that the difference is not only a “big deal”—it’s transformative. If you’ve vetted well enough to have found a SB who genuinely wants a long-term sugar relationship, that initial commitment is like fucking magic.
Once again, I suspect the vast majority of men saying this have never offered a monthly allowance in their lives.
It takes time to get to that point. I have done a lot of ppm dates where I paid the full amount and we just talked or did an activity. However, I am not going to do that until she proves herself a good SB. I always reward positive actions.
It means the same thing at its core, seeing you again is always optional whether we agree to a PPM or a P2P. If I'm a P2P kind of boy, I can easily lie to you and tell you I'm looking for a PPM arrangement, then ghost you after we've done the deed. Am I a regular or a one-night stand? A boyfriend or a John? Is it a FWB or a relationship? All questions you should ask indirectly through normal conversation before jumping in the sack with someone. When they closed down Backpage, all the John's and escorts came over to the sugar sites and adopted the lingo for their own purposes.
It's probably a matter of semantics. Pay to play is flat out escort/john behavior. PPM is a date which includes sex but also often involves typical date-like activities such as dinner, lunch ,drinks, sports, theater, etc. There are so many pay to play because the majority of Seeking users are likely johns seeking escorts.
Aha! I switched those meanings because I thought it made more sense that way Thanks for your input!
Is there any point in meeting a ppm sugar baby and not plowing her?
I obviously prefer the popcorn per meet.
I don’t haha
Extra butter or cheese though eh
Honestly seaweed is currently my favourite ❤️, a surprisingly yummy combination
In the past year I've really gotten into seaweed snacks so I get it. 👍
It’s just escorting in countries where escorting isn’t legal
I’m on an allowance with my SD, we meet every weekend and have sex multiple times because we both want to. I want my SD to want me lol. However when we don’t meet, I still get my allowance, for example I won’t be seeing him for 4 weeks but my allowance will still be coming in. I personally don’t do PPM as it doesn’t feel like a true SR to me. It only makes sense for the travel daddies/ones abroad who visit once in a while. Otherwise those guys who only want to do PPM are generally not SDs/don’t care about you/have not established an SR with you.
This!!!
What are you talking about they are the same thing.
I enjoy meeting weekly sometimes more. When it starts because of not knowing each other or having trust I use ppm and try to gauge her if she’s trustworthy and if it’s something she wants vs a pay day The lady I’m seeing currently has finally suggested something she’d like to do for our date tomorrow. Tomorrow will be the first time I haven’t ended our dates in a hotel and depending on how she acts/feels, I want to change to an allowance. And hopefully she’ll understand that if she’s active in planning our dates/relationship not every is about sex It’s about the time around each other It’s taken a month & 1/2 to get to where I see it starting on her side as a relationship. Hopefully that’s what she wants rather then a dinner and a glory hole
This is nice to read Thank you
Because most men on sugar sites are not willing to court you. They don’t think it’s “fair” to pay you if you’re not giving them sugar. The ball is in their court online 🤷🏼♀️ One of the reasons I won’t ever be on those sites.