The Sugar Daddy
posted by CS | 11:00 AM 
This site ires the conservative within me (though I admit it doesn't particularly bother the libertarian). There is something particularly creepy about the term "Sugar Daddy". Daddies are supposed to be caring, non-sexual guides and protectors of the lives of young'ens entrusted to them. "Sugar" connotes something hollow, non-nourishing - such as sex without intimacy.
When I see a much older or much less physicaly attractive man with a smokin'-hot young woman, I am (unfortunately) quick to deem (read: judge) the situation one of the Sugar Daddy. A recent case in point is eBay billionaire Jeff Skoll. In his case, the bride to be is a good deal younger, a great deal taller, and just a tad more attractive.
I don't point this out to begrudge Skoll his lovely bride to be. I have my own smokin'-hot beauty wed to me. And I have no envy of his fortunes, though I will admit another few dozen K-bucks a year would be nice right now. I think the root of my pebble-in-the-shoe feeling when contemplating these romantic arrangements is that they rub against truth. Truth, in this case, being soul-level contentment.
Marriage for some men starts out as a conquest for the most physically attractive woman he can find -- and more importantly -- keep. The operative word is conquest. Most romantic courtships have some element of chase and conquest to them; otherwise they aren't very much fun. This is my view at least, that there must be some risk in order to heighten the reward.
But all men find at some point that contentment in a mate is incumbent upon a good deal more than her physical attractiveness. What's the condition of her heart? What animates her mind? Are her goals realistic and close to your own? Does she make tough decisions, choose the right over the easy? Does she respect you beyond one facet of your person (read: your finances or power)? What does her family think of you and you, of her family? Does she believe in your God? Does she live out her faith in visible ways? Does she forgive you when you really screw something up? Does it take an earnest "will you forgive me?" or a new Mercedes SL?
Does she laugh at what you laugh, tear up at what you, um, get something in your eye? Does she hate squirrels as much as you do? Does she help you (note to Jeff) dress appropriately and well for all situations? Can she wear her Barbie shoes without towering over you?
These are but a few questions that come to mind when I consider the peril of basing a romantic relationship, particularly a marriage, upon one or two outstanding personal attributes. Said another way: we all have desires; ground your desires in the fertile earth of reality.
When I see a much older or much less physicaly attractive man with a smokin'-hot young woman, I am (unfortunately) quick to deem (read: judge) the situation one of the Sugar Daddy. A recent case in point is eBay billionaire Jeff Skoll. In his case, the bride to be is a good deal younger, a great deal taller, and just a tad more attractive.
I don't point this out to begrudge Skoll his lovely bride to be. I have my own smokin'-hot beauty wed to me. And I have no envy of his fortunes, though I will admit another few dozen K-bucks a year would be nice right now. I think the root of my pebble-in-the-shoe feeling when contemplating these romantic arrangements is that they rub against truth. Truth, in this case, being soul-level contentment.
Marriage for some men starts out as a conquest for the most physically attractive woman he can find -- and more importantly -- keep. The operative word is conquest. Most romantic courtships have some element of chase and conquest to them; otherwise they aren't very much fun. This is my view at least, that there must be some risk in order to heighten the reward.
But all men find at some point that contentment in a mate is incumbent upon a good deal more than her physical attractiveness. What's the condition of her heart? What animates her mind? Are her goals realistic and close to your own? Does she make tough decisions, choose the right over the easy? Does she respect you beyond one facet of your person (read: your finances or power)? What does her family think of you and you, of her family? Does she believe in your God? Does she live out her faith in visible ways? Does she forgive you when you really screw something up? Does it take an earnest "will you forgive me?" or a new Mercedes SL?
Does she laugh at what you laugh, tear up at what you, um, get something in your eye? Does she hate squirrels as much as you do? Does she help you (note to Jeff) dress appropriately and well for all situations? Can she wear her Barbie shoes without towering over you?
These are but a few questions that come to mind when I consider the peril of basing a romantic relationship, particularly a marriage, upon one or two outstanding personal attributes. Said another way: we all have desires; ground your desires in the fertile earth of reality.
7 Comments:
You got it all wrong, brother. This isn't about Jeff Skoll. It is about her. I know because I have a sugar mama and while I had the idea she would shower me with gifts, trips, toys and attention; it wouldn't have happened if I didn't scam my way into her life. It takes a lot of manipulation and pretending. Pretending that the money doesn't matter. I try to pretend that all I care about is Marge (not true). But Marge like Mr. Ebay lets us in because they know on some level that although they are being toyed with and manipulated that they will atleast have "hand" in the relationship. Marge is no pretty, young thing- but it is my job to make her think she is. It is my job to make her think all of the twenty some law clerks are "unattractive". It's working for me, every month I am getting that much closer to billionaire by association status and get this- when I told her that I would have to take on extra cases and work harder to pay for my daughter's college tuition (a lie), she wouldn't have it and promptly issues me a check for the first TWO years tuition!
I just checked out that site. There are some other similar dating sites like MillionaireMatch. It seems that they have a better concept of romance and relationships for successful singles than "sugar daddy, mama, babe". Most millionaires there are not looking for a sugar daddy type relationship. They are looking for their true love.
Do you really think a guy that could have the pick of the litter would choose someone that is JUST pretty and nothing else? Do you HONESTLY think that alone would fulfill him? He did not become a billionaire by being dumb! Such naive thinking you have. I feel sorry for your lack of depth.
You will be happy to know that the woman you speak of is a conservative that is on an anti-elitism crusade.
Here's something: What about attractive women who don't need men like Jeff Skoll for his success but to protect their own? Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to find an attractive smart man? It's nearly impossible. You may not realize it, but beautiful men are almost always as blank and pointless as the kind of women that usually make up the gold digger set.
From what I've known, the woman in the photo with Jeff Skoll is incredibly, incredibly intelligent, founded a charitable organization and has enormous class.
Quit watching The Hills. :) Not all pretty women are pointless idiots.
She will be gone with half his money in 10 years, no biggie.
Anyone else find it a bit humorous how an anonymous gold-digger (quite possibly the one in question) put up a stealth fight on here?
Hilarious.
Post a Comment
<< Home