Sugaring is driven by healthy market economics. As for the available companionship from an interesting girl, there’s more demand than supply. Either she raises the price of her companionship, or (if she says “yes” to everyone) she’s overwhelmed with allocating more time to companionship than she wants to. I’m going to explain how Sugaring and economics work in the same ways, or they can if you’re smart.
More people are interested than you want to grace with your presence. So logically, you simple HAVE to raise your prices to reduce demand. Here’s how:
The approach of choosing to reduce supply by being unpleasant is effective. Is this very-popular approach a good idea? No, though now we understand the underlying need for it. The need to reduce the demand is legitimate, even though the approach isn’t advisable.
Another way to reduce the demand is to just arbitrarily say “no” to some and “yes” to others. That is about as fair as hiring people, or judging innocence vs. guilt, based on flipping a coin. You might say “no” to someone who values you highly and could have added much value to your life, and say “yes” to someone who isn’t even all that appreciative – and behaves as such.
Another way to reduce the demand is to arbitrarily make it harder for people to get awarded the prize of your company. Many guilds take that approach to limit demand for membership. Their entrance tests have little to do with objective merit, and focus instead on simply being so difficult and unpleasant that only a small percentage of people succeed, overqualified and overpaid for the realities of that profession.
This approach could drive away people who, on merit, could have deserved your company, enjoyed it and made life much nicer for you.
The Sugaring Approach
Perhaps now it becomes clear why the Sugar Baby approach is so wholesome by contrast. You’re simply so interesting to others that, if you didn’t do something to reduce the demand for your companionship, you’d be overwhelmed by more demand than you can supply.
With the Sugar Baby approach, you’ve chosen the win-win, open, nice-person way of reducing the demand. It’s more fair: those who demonstrably value you the most, using the objective standard of money, get favored.
Of course, it’s not just about money. Much else goes into qualifying someone to be deserving of our companionship. Even so, the personal qualities we demand (safety, civility, cleanliness, health) are mostly prerequisites. It’s money that enables us to control demand much more precisely than other ways can.
Sugar Babies deal with the supply-and-demand issue much more nicely than someone popular who is being mean, or random, or puts up artificial hurdles.
Discussing the Point
Whether through jealousy or ignorance, many outsiders frown on the morality of Sugaring unfairly. Inherently, Sugaring is actually very positive and it’s a win-win for you and the Sugar Daddy.
When someone nevertheless attacks my choice of how I choose to allocate my companionship, then I’m open to discussing it as long as they’re a) civil b) open to reason, and c) know that my explanation to them is a courtesy from me, not something they can demand.
Often I present the situation like this:
“More hours of my companionship are in demand than I want to supply. So, what am I to do?”
I typically give that time to sink in. Pretty soon people connect the dots and start seeing where I’m coming from: a place of economics. Better yet, if it’s a conclusion they draw themselves. Then they’re more likely to be receptive to the new idea than if I dragged them through every logical step along the way.
Even so, it’s important that I’m clear on the solid logical basis of each point, including the solid economics that underlie the lifestyle Sugar Babies live. This is also why I can face opposition and adversity, armed with the courage of my convictions.