<p>My view on gay relationships is not politically-based, but religious-based. Unlike you, being in a gay relationship is just not a feat I can accomplish. (I never gave an opinion on gay marriage or a political position on gay marriage)</p>
<p>Note that in that same post I did not dismiss gay relationships, as not authentic. I said that the guys in gay relationships understood why they are in them, but I could not. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please re-read the last four words of the above quote where I actually acknowledge that there is such a thing, as a gay relationship and the gay guys get it. However, I am clear I do not get it and could not partake. </p>
<p>This position is 180 degrees from me saying that gay relationships are not what they say they are and are not real. I never said that. Contrast that with many posters who are saying that SD-SB relationships are not what SDs and SBs say they are. That is something I never said and a position I never took re gay relationships. I accept gay relationships are what gay guys say their relationship is. I just do not understand what that is. However, I do not need to understand it to see that it is real to them. I take the gay guys’ word for it.</p>
<p>I understand if people do not get the SD-SB relationships, tons of people do not, but to then say those relationships must not be what they say they are is where I differ.</p>
<p>DH just got the results of the coronary calcium scan that was done on him a few days ago. He has NO calcium specks in his coronary arteries. It is a relief, because his dad had two heart attacks which he survived, but his health was never the same afterwards. DH had a treadmill test this afternoon. Thank goodness he puts the treadmill at home on an incline when he runs, because they kept increasing the slope until he was running fairly hard on an 18% incline! I don’t think I could do that. I bet he passed that test with flying colors. I understand that he still has a small risk of having a heart attack, but we didn’t want to have something happen and realize we could have done something about it (the very fit director of the Beach to Beacon 10K and the Boston Marathon recently had a scare and came close to dying due to problems that could have been detected by these tests ).</p>
<p>Do you realize your logic and evidence are non-existent in implying that I do not let people live and let live? Nothing that I wrote even remotely says anything of the kind. </p>
<p>Please feel free to point out exactly where I say a gay guy should not be gay? And also point out exactly where I advocated stopping someone from being gay, i.e., I do not allow a let-live principle? I will save you the trouble - no where did I ever say or imply that. All I said is I do not get it. </p>
<p>I see this as no different than I do not get skydiving (but obviously this is based on different reasoning). Nothing that anyone has told me over 30+ years of flying helps me understand why anyone would jump out of a perfectly functioning airplane. I do not get it. But, darn, knock yourself out, as someone skydiving is not dependent on my understanding it. And I darn sure would not advocate stopping anyone from doing it. I think they are nuts, but love life and jump away. I just will not be joining them.</p>
<p>In general, there are many things in each person’s life that he/r gets and many things he/r does not get. Like now. I do not get how understanding or not understanding something automatically translates into the person must allow or not allow something. These are exclusive activities; one is perceptual (understanding) and one is active, concerted real-world action (allowing or stopping). These are not even in the same realms of existence. </p>
<p>This thread is entertaining but I don’t know what people are trying to figure out here. Of course, there are girlfriends who are happy to be subsidized. I know of at least one of those and it wasn’t even a secret. But, they broke up and then she married a rich guy they had several children. She is in her mid-thirties now and very happy but I doubt they would be married with children if he was broke. He’s forty-something.</p>
<p>I’m confused. What does “I don’t get/understand” gay relationships have to do with religion? I understand that religious beliefs often translate into disapproval, but certainly many who disapprove for religious reasons actually do “get it.”</p>
<p>No, and that is the reason I would not partake and why I would consul against it. </p>
<p>However, I do understand why some people do it - specifically, see post #505. Though, I would add that the SD wants the company of such female, so they are a match for each other.</p>
<p>EDIT: Post 505 says something is important: the SB is considered a girlfriend, albeit a subsidized one where the subsidy is agreed to ahead of time.</p>
<p>Isn’t it possible some coeds might turn down a ride in a private plane because of a fear of flying (no pun intended!) not because they doubted your sincerity? But I guess that would be a deal-breaker for a pilot, so no harm done really.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@Nrdsb4</p>
<p>I started this thread and asked in post #405 for @awcntdb to explain his actual credentials and he never directly answered my question. I gather he feels he’s explained himself enough already, but I still don’t follow how such an obviously well-educated and mature gentleman could make such sweeping generalizations about the “sugar daddy/baby” industry based on his own anecdotal observations.</p>
<p>AW-
Where are you reading that SD/SB relationships are not what people believe they are. Posters understand this contractual relationship, despite the constant individual examples of activities and demeanor. We get it. We really do. But just as you say for religious reasons you cannot understand a gay relationship, for ethical/moral reasons I cannot understand a married man thinking its ok to have/support a SB. Its so degrading to the family and the concept of marriage. And to put blinders on and say “well thats their belief system or lifestyle- you just don’t get it”. We DO get it. we just disapprove. I repeat, I don’t much care if a single guy wants to do this (or divorced guy as long as its not detracting from his ethical/financial obligation to his ex wife and children from the marriage) but I have a big problem with married men, whether its 30% or 50% or whatever, that actively cheat on their wives and flaunt it. Blech. Double blech. These men may act sophisticated and cultured, but if they are married they are smarmy and declasse’. </p>
<p>And please don’t tell us its a cultural norm we do not understand. DH related a story of once being on a business trip to Japan. He was invited by the work associates to a private “hostess club”. It was very uncomfortable for him. Didn’t want to offend his associates, but wasnt interested in some of what was being offered.</p>
<p>Back in the early 2000s (might be late, late 90s), the CEO who founded the black-focused station BET, Bob Johnson, gave a couple interviews where in one he said something which really explains how people think in general about their lives in relation to others. The video of the interview might even be youtube, but it was before that time.</p>
<p>A building on his horse farm in Middleburg, VA was getting worked on, and he was interested in seeing how it was going, so he went out to see. He started talking to a foreman there and he asked questions about the work and suggested some improvements and started explaining what the next phase should look like. </p>
<p>The foreman started telling him that he (Johnson) did not understand what was involved (which Johnson did because it was he who ordered the work) and that would be very expensive. Johnson told him that is fine and continued explaining his idea. Then the foreman stopped him and told him that that is not what he (the foreman) would do because it would be too expensive, and the foreman was sure the owner would not approve. Johnson then just turned around and left - and got it done anyway by using someone else.</p>
<p>The reporter then asked Johnson why he did not file a complaint with the company because obviously it was some form of racism and the foreman did not connect that Johnson owned the place. Referring to the forman, Johnson said, “What would be the point? Clearly his elevator did not go that far.” </p>
<p>I find this similar - it is easier and more comforting to assume exaggeration if ones’ life does not go that far. I get that.</p>
<p>It was never a turn down. It was an open non-belief that a plane to go places actually existed. And as I said, I did not think it my job to prove it. If a girl could not believe what I say, I was outta there. </p>
<p>I am still like that today. If I tell someone something and they openly do not believe me, I just quietly go about my way. I have no interesting in proving it. Who the in world are they that I have to prove myself to him or her? The only entity I have to prove myself to is not even of this earth.</p>
<p>In this department, SDs get a truth pass. SBs, by definition, initially believe what an SDs says. If the SD presents himself as X, he better be X. An SD gains nothing by lying because if he does not produce, quite smartly, what he says he is, then that relationship would be super short-lived, as she will drop him real fast. Same goes for an SB who lies, but SDs also take SBs at their word, until proved otherwise.</p>