Soooooo......

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

Someone wants to help me out financially, or offer me some sort of domestic security, fine. I can be a cute date. I find myself on the other side of the equation now. No surprise. Who doesn't like the satisfaction of helping someone out? And, if they happen to be cute? All the better. I ain't the Red Cross. Granted, I'm not in this situation very often, but, when I am, neither party is laboring under any delusions.

I think this is the key to my confusion. The fact that you are able to come into the elder role later on perhaps mitigates the issues I have with it.

It's obviously not a new thing that people barter attractiveness and companionship for money. It's just something I personally don't like. If the people involved are both complicit then it's their business. I may not think it's healthy to make such transactions, but as Gn2 says, I'm not a gay man. Men are not threatened by this. I will say that IMHO, the longer you spend playing the helpless bimbo, the more you become a helpless bimbo. Perhaps this applies more to women? I dunno.

It's interesting that the fact that it's two men changes the game so much.

I do enjoy a good lusty comment, but this is something that's been building up in my mind for quite a while. My apologies to JW for my reaction which must have seemed out of left field. It was a cumulative thing. I tried to keep my post level because it isn't about pointing fingers but understanding a trend I've seen among many gay relationships and that I really don't get. I obviously do not know particulars about Dave and his lost puppies (more on that below) and the question wasn't really about Dave, it was about the whole sugar daddy thing.

If Dave had hired a busty blonde to help around the house (everybody ought to have a maid...), and she was another in a string of lookers, and I happened to like busty blondes, why on earth would it be offensive for me to say so?

For me, it's the sex bartering that's the issue, not looking at attractive people. I ogle my share.

Originally Posted by JWBear

Ok. Let me clear up a couple of misconceptions...

1) Dave never has a sexual or romantic relationship his "lost puppies". They are usually damaged people that he finds through his church work and tries to help. They tend to be gay and male because that is who the outreach group he is a part of is targeted towards. Although some have not been gay. He had an elderly straight woman there at one point.

2) His current project is far from being an under-aged twink (how anyone read that from my post I can't fathom); he looks to be in his late 30s, and is rather scruffy.

3) All gay men do not find under-aged twinks attractive. We are not pedophiles.

4) I find the notion that, just because a gay man sees someone attractive, that he would stand "naked at the blinds pulling one off" to be demeaning and insulting.

Ok, so I apparently completely misunderstood your post. To me, "lost puppies" is a demeaning term, soaked in condescension. "Aww, little lost puppies, can't take care of yourselves, here let daddy help." I can't see someone using the term to refer to themselves.

You said he "has a thing for lost puppies" which to me indicates a sexual relationship. You called him his "latest project", which again, sounds demeaning.

No one said that he was an underage twink (how anyone read that from my post I can't fathom). Are twinks always underage? I thought it was more about looking young and nubile. I never said anything about them being underage, though you may be referring to Alex's joke. In any case, I don't care if Dave's "project" is scruffy, or a bear, or whatever. My reference to twinks was mostly an end line joke, and I never said that all gay men are attracted to twinks, or underage people, or children. I don't know where you got that from.

In any case I feel like I know a little more about this stuff now, so at least that. Sorry if I offended but as I said, I find this a bit unsettling, and need it explained to me. Thanks.