<p>I mean intelligent men not cabana boys. </p>
<p>I want equity to the one mentioned in this article.</p>
<p>I am inclined to go to the source to get an accurate picture of what these arrangements are really like. While the girls in the articles linked below acknowledge the money can be compelling……… well read for yourself. First article is a bit too blunt to quote from but here’s a short excerpt from the second:</p>
<p>“Jack looks nothing like his pictures. Jack looks like he’s pushing 50. Jack is wearing an ‘80s power suit that is obviously too small for him. Buttons are about to pop on his red paisley shirt. Jack is easily tipping the scales at 300 lbs. Jack is balding. Jack smells like whiskey.”</p>
<p>" Jack is trying to get me to feed him while making loud repulsive jokes. Oh, and of course he’s selling me the moon while talking with food in his mouth and dripping wine down the front of his shirt." </p>
<p>" Oh, and did I mention? I’m way into fantasy role-playing and feet. How would you like……………(deleted for content.)</p>
<p><a href=“SugarDaddy.com: Old Dogs, New Tricks – Mother Jones”>http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/01/sugardaddycom-old-dogs-new-tricks</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thefrisky.com/2011-10-06/girl-talk-i-was-a-sugar-baby/”>http://www.thefrisky.com/2011-10-06/girl-talk-i-was-a-sugar-baby/</a></p>
<p>$3000 per month is not a lot of money. I feel sorry for these kids. I would up the ante.</p>
<p>Maybe this is why feminism equals birth control and can’t seem to get out of that gear and get to anything of substance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One capable of apologizing if late, that might be a draw.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not know what you mean here. </p>
<p>There is a reason there are different doctors for men and women. And that difference is vast enough that treating women is a wholly separate medical speciality. When such physical differences exist to the point that a specialized doctor must be created, it defies logic to think that nothing else different in existence falls out from that. That is all I am talking about here. </p>
<p>As for your specific example, the levels of estrogen and testosterone are at polar opposite levels of production between men and women. Just having the same hormones does not mean men and women are the same anymore than two different dinner dishes can have identical ingredients in varying proportions. it is the level of hormones, which determines characteristics and activity, not their shear existence alone. </p>
<p>As for the SBs, a major difference in their thinking is that they do not want to be like men, do not aspire to be like men. and do not see themselves in competition with men. They embrace that fact that they are female and different than men and want to do different things. </p>
<p>It does warp my mind that people are creating this false concept that men and women are the same. If we were the same, then evolution is one dumb system that does not know that it created identical creatures which act and think the same and have the same abilities. If that were true, humans would be the first example of evolution creating equal products that look different, are built different, and require different maintenance. </p>
<p>This misogyny claim stuff is nonsense. I am talking science here. And “science make-up” does determine behavior and particular characteristics for all human males and females, and for all animals and life in general for that matter. This is why diseases and physical conditions run in families - hint - not all families are equal either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are creating a false and inaccurate analogy. </p>
<p>Sexism and racism are the use of differences to discriminate. They are not the acknowledgement and scientific respect of differences at are proved to exist. And they are not the acknowledgment and understanding of any limitations that those differences place on whom possesses those traits. </p>
<p>According to your logic, I was a big-time sexist when I was dating because I darn sure was not looking for an equal. I was looking for a female who could have babies, something I could not do, as a male. And I was also a misogynist I guess because I was looking for a female who wanted to have kids before age 30 because I knew the stats of the difficulty having kids and the rise in Downs Syndrome and other genetic diseases after age 30.</p>
<p>Well, I was neither a sexist or misogynist. I simply respected the differences that exist and wanted to reduce the risks, as much as possible, of not having healthy kids. If understanding those facts and acting on them make me a sexist and a misogynist to some, then so be it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or…the gals can hang with male contemporaries who can try impressing or more accurately…aggravating them with their guitar technique with a bona-fide electric guitar and amp. </p>
<p>Also, there’s an old joke common among my Indie rock band friends that goes like this:</p>
<p>Q: What do you call a male guitarist/bassist/drummer* who was dumped by his girlfriend/wife/SO?</p>
<p>A: Homeless. </p>
<p>As an aside, judging by the direction some comments on this thread has taken, I am even more certain Mark Sanford should toss his hat into the 2016 presidential race. He probably has a ready-built constituency made up of SB employers…and political comedians hoping for more material for their acts. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny…but does show the bias I mentioned about if people like what an SD is doing elsewhere. The media would use Sanford for jokes in a heart beat, but dutifully hid the SB of Edwards in 2004. Riley was a $150K+ SB. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One major difference, Sanford still managed to get elected to another political office despite his hypocritical philanderings. Unless something drastic happens, the scandal surrounding Edwards, Riley, and campaign spending were such his current political prospects are occupying the same space as davy jones’ locker. </p>
<p>^^ My point was only that the media has different standards re SBs when it is someone it supports. The media never liked Sanford’s SB situation and tried to use it to stop him from being elected. But they hid Edward’s SB to protect him hoping he got elected.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I’m wondering how many SDs can relate to the following song:</p>
<p>Weird Al - Girls Just Wanna Have Lunch</p>
<p>Uh, @awcntdb, Sanford’s mistress didn’t become news until he disappeared off to Argentina, er, hike the Appalachian Trail. As for using that information to keep Sanford from being elected, you think that they’d give John Edwards a free pass if he attempted a comeback?</p>
<p>The Sanford situation had nothing to do with SDs and SBs.</p>
<p>Putting aside the political questions and going back to the main topic for a second, I have the following question:</p>
<p>For those who actually know people in these arrangements, what is the motivation of the men? For the unmarried ones, do they hope to someday fall in love and to have a truly fulfilling relationship? Do they want kids? Do they have kids? Do they have DAUGHTERS?</p>
<p>For the married ones, are they in love with their wives? Do they value their wives?</p>
<p>^^ Yes, what you state is correct how the Sanford’s lover got exposed, but that only illustrates the media did not know about her. </p>
<p>However, the media did know about Edward’s SB and hid that info. If the media knew about Sanford’s lover before his trip, it would never have kept that info under cover. That is a huge difference. </p>
<p>I do agree that Edwards cannot make a comeback today. But, imagine if he got elected? The media would have helped shield an SB relationship for the purpose of getting him elected, which still shows its bias, as they would have never shielded a known lover of Sanford.</p>
<p>EDIT: I agree with post #194 in not calling Sanford’s situation and SD-SB one. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. We kind of conflated the girlfriend / SB/ lover thing here. Sanford and that woman were actually in love. So, it is an error to call her an SB.</p>
<p>Thanks for the correction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Motivation is the company of a female without the surrounding drama, which invariably accompanies an actual relationship. The men just want to go out, have a good time, enjoy the person’s company, and not worry about getting chewed out for something like leaving the seat up or having to cancel last minute because of a business meeting. That simple. It is the same as causally dating someone you know you will never settle down with. Casual daters do not argue and mostly ignore little things that bug them about the person, as to not mess up the good time. Just as with casual daters, there really is nothing such as make-up sex with SBs, so few SDs and SBs risk rocking the boat.</p>
<p>The younger unmarried SDs (Age 40 and below) do think about getting married some day and having a fulfilling relationship. Just not now.</p>
<p>The older unmarried SDs (50 and up) are usually divorced and often do not want to marry again. Some do of course, and the usually choose someone to marry who is a little bit older than the standard SB. </p>
<p>The married SDs just no longer do things with the wide for various reasons.</p>
<p>Majority of SDs (45 and up) already have children. Most are not looking for more children. That makes SBs easy to deal with because SBs, by definition, do not want kids during the time they are SBs.</p>
<p>Many SDs have daughters, and they rather their daughters not be SBs. They are pretty clear about that. Their dreams for their daughters are the same as most Dads. They wish their daughters find a nice guy, get married, have kids, and live happily ever after. </p>
<p>"specifically pointed out in the work arena, and in a couple other areas where biology is so different, that the having-it-all concept ran into natural obstacles when it got converted to mean to be just like men. Just like men is quite different than having the constitutional rights just like any other citizen. "</p>
<p>What “natural obstacles”? I had my twins at age 27. I took a 6 month maternity leave and went back to work full time. My H and I have always been full partners in raising our kids; it was not as though I was a “primary parent” and he was the back-up. I was around more due to the nature of his job (delivering babies and being on-call). I don’t see what you’re getting at. Obviously I had to do the physical bearing-and-delivery piece, but aside from that, what’s different? </p>