Was I in the wrong?

VixR

Veritas
So basically you are saying there is nothing wrong with gold diggers and if a woman screws a man for his money and her end goal is to get his money. She doesnt have to tell him? If you have no problem with women screwing men to get what they want, then do you have problem with men doing the same thing? Basically you gotta do what you gotta do to get yours?
As if they don’t already. That’s life. So you’re saying you want it on everyone’s foreheads why they’re screwing the other?

Be careful what you wish for.
 

Vanguard

Fino alla morte
Sxb loads of Xalimoz in Europe can’t drive.
For instance @RichEnoughForGucci the 23 year old from south Gaalkacyo who resides in 3rd work country UK.
She can’t drive
Drivers licenses from America are worthless. Majority of the time it's an automatic license lol. I used to drive automatic cars back home during the summer holidays when I was 16 with no license.

And here you have grown ass men bragging about driving a car like a go-kart because they're too stupid to learn how a manual transmission works:mjlol:
 
Lol, I disagree with you here.

Sugar daddy is just a politically correct prostitute. Both parties no there is no real intimacy and that it is nothing more than a cold business arrangement. It's upfront.

Whereas the gold-digger puts up a facade and fakes genuine intimacy exceedingly well, while extracting financial gain from the sucker who believes she is actually into him.

It's totally not the same thing at all.



But it's different for someone to love you primarily for your looks vs your money. The relationship dynamics are totally different and what you get out of it is much more superior with looks vs money. One mirrors an actual genuine relationship, while the other boils down to prostitution with blurry lines.
The P word is what women who exchange sex for money hate. Even pornstars if you tell them you are basically prostitutes. They will say no...we are glamour actress. So there is no way a woman exchanging money/gifts with a sugar daddy for sex would accept being called prostitute. I had one time girl get angry at me for saying so you are a prostitute....she was an escort.:ftw9nwa::ftw9nwa:
 
As if they don’t already. That’s life. So you’re saying you want it on everyone’s foreheads why they’re screwing the other?

Be careful what you wish for.
No Im talking about you now. Neither of us can speak for everyone. do you think its ok morally for a woman to enter a relationship with a man she knows is rich just for his money and fake feelings with the end goal being his money? I think people would appreciate honesty so yes I would like to know if the person I am with dont have genuine feelings for me
 

Vanguard

Fino alla morte
@Gooney112 so you're telling us that in the 2 weeks you were speaking to this girl, you didn't once tell her what you do for a living?

Most people aren't as blunt as she is, that's why asking a person how they earn their money is often enough of a hint to give you an idea of their income.
 
@Gooney112 so you're telling us that in the 2 weeks you were speaking to this girl, you didn't once tell her what you do for a living?

Most people aren't as blunt as she is, that's why asking a person how they earn their money is often enough of a hint to give you an idea of their income.
she know the company I work for, the job title and exactly where its based. even my hours and when i have break
 

VixR

Veritas
Lol, I disagree with you here.

Sugar daddy is just a politically correct prostitute. Both parties no there is no real intimacy and that it is nothing more than a cold business arrangement. It's upfront.

Whereas the gold-digger puts up a facade and fakes genuine intimacy exceedingly well, while extracting financial gain from the sucker who believes she is actually into him.

It's totally not the same thing at all.



But it's different for someone to love you primarily for your looks vs your money. The relationship dynamics are totally different and what you get out of it is much more superior with looks vs money. One mirrors an actual genuine relationship, while the other boils down to prostitution with blurry lines.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Prostitution is the cold exchange of sex for money.

Sugar daddy relationships are intimate/charade relationships with a transaction on an agreed rate which he’ll call “gifts”. Sure they know on a level that they’re paying for it, but they’re paying for intimacy and the charade of a relationship. They’re the mirror of gold-diggers.
 
No your not in the wrong. She shouldve just compromised and respected your feelings once you said drop it, it's a bad sign to get dramatic over this. Imagine bigger issues :holeup:
 

Vanguard

Fino alla morte
she know the company I work for, the job title and exactly where its based. even my hours and when i have break
Woah it's brave of you to disclose all of that in just two weeks.

I'd only mention my field of work in that time, but job title, shift pattern and company naaah man that's too much :nahgirl:

Anyway a quick Google search could easily give her the answer she's looking for. Why is she stressing herself out :damedamn:
 

VixR

Veritas
Lol, I disagree with you here.

Sugar daddy is just a politically correct prostitute. Both parties no there is no real intimacy and that it is nothing
But it's different for someone to love you primarily for your looks vs your money. The relationship dynamics are totally different and what you get out of it is much more superior with looks vs money. One mirrors an actual genuine relationship, while the other boils down to prostitution with blurry lines.
Looks can boil down to a genuine relationship?

I don’t know why you can’t admit that they’re both on superficial scales. You’re equating a man loving my beauty with a man loving me, and that’s somehow better than my loving you for your wealth. Some might say the latter is more concrete.
 
You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Prostitution is the cold exchange of sex for money.

Sugar daddy relationships are intimate/charade relationships with a transaction on an agreed rate which he’ll call “gifts”. Sure they know on a level that they’re paying for it, but they’re paying for intimacy and the charade of a relationship. They’re the mirror of gold-diggers.

:what1:

@Gooney112 Take this cognitive dissonance in sxb.


A sugar baby is trading her body and time for money. You can use whatever euphemisms or politically correct terms you want to make it more palatable, but I'm sorry to say that is still prostitution. There is no such thing as bought intimacy. One of the foundations of actual intimacy is true validation from your lover. A gold-digger is the only one out of them all that can get close to mimicking true intimacy based on all the smokes and mirrors she crafted in the relationship. Here's another clear distinguishing factor between the "sugar-baby" and the gold-digger: the average wealthy guy can't bring his sugar baby to work functions/other gatherings and credibly claim that's his wife and get all of the social benefits associated with it, while he definitely can do so with his gold-digging and conniving wife.
 
Woah it's brave of you to disclose all of that in just two weeks.

I'd only mention my field of work in that time, but job title, shift pattern and company naaah man that's too much :nahgirl:

Anyway a quick Google search could easily give her the answer she's looking for. Why is she stressing herself out :damedamn:
cause she is dumb as a rock. No other explanation
 

VixR

Veritas
:what1:

@Gooney112 Take this cognitive dissonance in sxb.


A sugar baby is trading her body and time for money. You can use whatever euphemisms or politically correct terms you want to make it more palatable, but I'm sorry to say that is still prostitution. There is no such thing as bought intimacy. One of the foundations of actual intimacy is true validation from your lover. A gold-digger is the only one out of them all that can get close to mimicking true intimacy based on all the smokes and mirrors she crafted in the relationship. Here's another clear distinguishing factor between the "sugar-baby" and the gold-digger: the average wealthy guy can't bring his sugar baby to work functions/other gatherings and credibly claim that's his wife and get all of the social benefits associated with it, while he definitely can do so with his gold-digging and conniving wife.
I stopped reading when you said there’s no such thing as bought intimacy lol.
 
:what1:

@Gooney112 Take this cognitive dissonance in sxb.


A sugar baby is trading her body and time for money. You can use whatever euphemisms or politically correct terms you want to make it more palatable, but I'm sorry to say that is still prostitution. There is no such thing as bought intimacy. One of the foundations of actual intimacy is true validation from your lover. A gold-digger is the only one out of them all that can get close to mimicking true intimacy based on all the smokes and mirrors she crafted in the relationship. Here's another clear distinguishing factor between the "sugar-baby" and the gold-digger: the average wealthy guy can't bring his sugar baby to work functions/other gatherings and credibly claim that's his wife and get all of the social benefits associated with it, while he definitely can do so with his gold-digging and conniving wife.
I tried....but I have talked to VixR a lot. Got nothing but love for the girl, but she is stubborn as a mule. In fact a mule would say to her.....girl even I aint that stubborn...come on now. Like I said this all came from the hate for the P word. Escort says she provide company. It means you gotta feed her and pay for her food and pay for the sex. Now the sugar daddy girls say we can do one better....we provide intimacy. Now what intimacy can a ***** provide? Cuddling after sex? hold my had while draining your pocket. Am I simple man brother....a ***** is a ***** is a *****. That statement has been true since the cavemans time and no matter what fancy word they put infront of it. Its still a *****
 
Looks can boil down to a genuine relationship?

I don’t know why you can’t admit that they’re both on superficial scales. You’re equating a man loving my beauty with a man loving me, and that’s somehow better than my loving you for your wealth. Some might say the latter is more concrete.
Are you really going to deny most relationships are founded mainly on lust and physical attraction? And then eventually people get more attracted to things beyond the physical. But that initially spark and powerful chemistry is all physical. Your looks can be the foundation for most great relationships, yes. On the other hand, no amount of money is going to make some physically repulsive man sexually attractive. The sexual and intimate parts of the relationship are real hard labor to your proverbial gold-digger. Hence, it's not the same at all.
 

Abdalla

Medical specialist in diagnosing Majeerteentitis
Prof.Dr.Eng.
VIP
You should've just mentioned a figure, sometimes you dont have to be principled.
 

VixR

Veritas
Are you really going to deny most relationships are founded mainly on lust and physical attraction? And then eventually people get more attracted to things beyond the physical. But that initially spark and powerful chemistry is all physical. Your looks can be the foundation for most great relationships, yes. On the other hand, no amount of money is going to make some physically repulsive man sexually attractive. The sexual and intimate parts of the relationship are real hard labor to your proverbial gold-digger. Hence, it's not the same at all.
You can literally, word-for-word, exchange your dialogue here with status/money/achievements in the space of looks and physical superficiality.
 
Come on guys, what VixR is saying is common sense. I agree with her that economic security is a major component of the law of attraction. Traditionally, men hold financial and power status over women and it is normal for them to seek such men. If the roles were reversed, they would've picked what we seek in them now. How about those of us who have no wealth and nor power, what do we want in women? We prefer someone who is fairly cute and have a decent education that could do the hard yaka with us. A partner that can bring an income to the household which enables us to maintain a comfortable life. If you earn more than her, then you are a catch, if she does, then, she will be a catch for another bloke. Rupert Murdoch can score a "pretty girl" before all of us, it is called economic security. Love is for two equal people with the same qualifications and earning similar (close) wages. If that paradigm tilts to one side, the law of attraction calls for economic security.
 
I stopped reading when you said there’s no such thing as bought intimacy lol.
This is the fundamental divergence I suppose. As a woman, you think you can successfully simulate the intimacy you give to your true romantic partners and commoditize it. But those fake kisses, hugs, smiles, etc. can be sensed a mile away subconsciously and consciously by your mark or, *ahem*, client in your body language.
 
Are you really going to deny most relationships are founded mainly on lust and physical attraction? And then eventually people get more attracted to things beyond the physical. But that initially spark and powerful chemistry is all physical. Your looks can be the foundation for most great relationships, yes. On the other hand, no amount of money is going to make some physically repulsive man sexually attractive. The sexual and intimate parts of the relationship are real hard labor to your proverbial gold-digger. Hence, it's not the same at all.
You are trying to convince a woman who said in previous page:

Do you tell a woman I’m with you cause you’re beautiful? So why expect a woman to admit it to a man that it’s for his riches?


So me approaching a woman for her looks and want to get to know her is the same as a gold digger approaching a man for his pocket. I think she is trolling us cause I refuse to believe someone really believe its the same. VixR stop trolling us:yloezpe:
 
Top