u/cornycatlady submitted by
posted on SLF: https://www.reddit.com/sugarlifestyleforum/comments/bokiyd/scared_of_getting_older_as_a_sb/
You may have noticed:
- The aged out prostitutes on SLF have no qualms about launching ageist attacks against younger girls between 18-25, calling the latter simpletons and immature. In reality, the thoughts expressed by the post showed much more maturity than the lying hags attacking heit.
- Many of those aged out prostitutes are chronic liars. Who would believe their stories about SD's buying her a Tesla Model S then a Model 3? (It's like buying a Toyota Camry/Corolla to replace a recent vintage Lexus LS; did the writer ever get to see the inside of those cars before writing such nonsense?) or SD giving her a beach house before conveniently dying? or being engaged to an SD of many years but somehow the SD has relocatedd to Europe for many months and they are still engaged to be married.
- The buying-her-a-beach-house-then-dying-timely story sounds like the wishful dream of an aged out prostitute pretending to be an SB. It shouldn't be a surprise that a woman having to stay in sex industry for too long would become bitter, and consequently nobody, not even very very old men would want to invest in her as an SB. Little wonder some very wealthy very old men like Bob Kraft would prefer a cash-and-carry sex-worker instead of a time-bomb like the former Clippers' owner's "SB" V blowing up and breaking his heart even after millions of dollars invested into her. "V" would be classified as a sex-worker / prostitute not an SB in this forum due to her juggling of multiple men besides her primary benefactor. It shouldn't be a surprise that she would turn out to be a fiasco.
- The lies that the aged-out prostitutes on SLF weave are actually real life lessons on not to become a prostitute (i.e. providing sex to multiple men, thereby making her own life insecure in the long run) . . . if you know how to read between their lines. If older ladies were more desirable than younger ladies, why is the term "Sugar Baby" instead of "Sugar Hag"?
Now let me address some of the specific issues raised in that post:
For once in my life, I envy not being a man.
No need for such envy; you likely don't notice the sorry lives of the bottom 95% of men.
For us women, our attractiveness is predominantly tied to our bodies and faces, and inevitably diminishes with time.
Your physical attractiveness allow you to engage and enjoy the attention of the top 1-3% of men. That is possible only because they pay little attention to older and less attractive women. Put it another way, even if you are a 9+ (there are no 10's); i.e. in the top 10% in beauty and youth, if all men were attracted to women in complete disregard of age then you'd only have 1 in 10 chance of finding a guy making half a mil or more a year as that's the cut-off line for the top 1% . . . that's for a 9+! only 1 in 10 chance. Of course in real life a girl of 9+ has better than 10% chance: she can get her turn while she is young and pretty. So instead of complaining about the transiency of the power of your youth/beauty, be appreciative of the fact that you can punch above your weight for a few years, so to speak. The dropping out of ladies in their 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's and etc. that used to be attractive years ago is the reason why you are able to find the time and attention from a man in the top 1-3% when you only need to be in the top 10% to 20% (i.e. 8 to 9+; sometimes even a 7 on the 10-point scale might work).
Of course, personality, priorities, all that inside stuff matters too for attractiveness in women, but it won't attract SD when we are 50 years old.
The real number is much lower than 50, like 30 if not 27. I wouldn't start with a new girl over 27. I prefer longer term relationships that last a few years.
However with men, for me at least, wealth, education, attire, health, and personality is what I deem sexy. These things are acquired over time and have a longevity to this sex appeal.
Instinctively you are looking for security from a male partner to help you with your baby projects. That's what women are biologically programmed to do, just like men are programmed to seek sex. Both are healthy and normal sexual desires.
Many SLF comments also gave you advice on investing. The same forum would have recommended Bitcoin if you were asking the question 18 months ago, just before it lost 80% of its value in the following year. They are now recommending stock indexing and real estate after a decade of continuous price expansion in both, where were they in 2009 to 2011? I was buying real estate hands-over-fist between 2009 to 2014 (at 30-70% price discount compared to the 2007 peak), but stopped in 2015 as higher prices made buying unattractive. Price cycles like those are common in financial history. NASDAQ (mostly tech and biotech stocks) index lost 80% of its value between 2000 and 2003. The 2008 drop cut SP500 in half. The supposed advice from sex-workers on SLF reminds me of this scene from The Big Short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZTFNizSNGs
It's another reason why professional career choices with short time horizons are bad ideas: the financial bubbles and busts are there to harvest money from the dummies to those "deserving money." The old saying: Money always finds ways to reach hands that deserve it. Before you follow the advice of indexing this late in the current cycle (10 years in, as of Feb 2019), you may want to think about whether you have either the intellect or time horizon for either joining the herd stamped or beating the index.
Let's take a detour and examine two simple games of dice rolls: a simple standard six-sided dice (1-6) vs. two dices rolling and averaging the two. The single fair dice would of course give (100% / 6) = 16.7% chance to each of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Rolling two dices and averaging the two would still produce results between 1 and 6, averaging exactly the same 3.5 expectation/average value. However, the distribution of outcomes are drastically different: there are 36 possible permutations when rolling two dices (many are redundant outcomes after averaging), but exactly 1 out 36 can produce an average of 6, so the probability of getting a 6 is 1/36 = 2.8%, which is drastically lower than the 16.7% probability of getting an outcome of 6 when rolling a single dice. In fact, there are two different ways of getting an average of 5.5: (6, 5) (5, 6); three different ways of getting an average of 5: (5, 5) (6, 4) (4, 6). So there are a total of 6 ways of getting 5 or better when rolling two dices and averaging them (out of 36 possible outcomes) and their average is (1x6 + 2x5.5 + 3x5) = 5.3. The cut-off line for the top 16% in single dice roll is a 6, whereas the cut-off for the top 16% in averaging two dice rolls is a full point lower (16.7% lower) at 5 (not even 5.5) and the average of the top 16% is only 5.3 (compared to 6 in single dice rolls); the average of the top 1/6 outcome from averaging-two-dice-rolls is literally lower than the average of the top 1/3 outcomes from single dice rolls! 5.3 vs. 5.5. There are far more than 33% probability of getting an outcome between 3 and 4 (inclusive of 3 and 4) when averaging two dice rolls.
That's the type of mathematical reality that you have to deal with when averaging two X-chromosomes (aka "being a woman," averaging two strands of dices) vs. having only one X-chromosome (aka "being a man," rolling only one genetic dice at each gene site for protein encoding/synethsis); X-chromosome is where most genes for intelligence are located (Y-chromosome having only less than 80 genes compared to the X's around 1200 genes is little more than a stub for exposing the single X-chromosome in men, so that the females can have more clear targets for sexual selection). Women are effectively given a genetic insurance policy to have far more outcomes in the middle of the distribution (the equivalent of between 3 and 4 in the dice rolls above) while giving up substantial probabilities at both extremes: both the extremely brilliant and the extremely dumb have much more men than women. Heck, the curse of having only one X-chromosome is so severe that boys have statistically significant higher probability of dying before reaching adulthood than girls do.
Unfortunately, as a woman, the biological instincts make you see only the top few percentage of men (it is the driving force behind evolution, and the reason why humanity exists); btw, men similarly instinctively sense whether you still have live eggs on the shelf, courtesy of the same evolutionary process. It is hard enough for a man to be successful enough to be in the top 1-5% (what it takes to be able to afford sugaring consistently), literally only 1 in 20 chance or lower; it's much harder for a woman . . . and more than half of it is due to what you are born with! Decades and billions of federal money spent on Head-Start already proved that education, even starting as early as pre-school, has little effect on a person's eventual level of success in adulthood; what makes a good college good is the admission process (i.e. the student body itself).
So, what's the solution for a young woman? How to put together a relatively happy and content life for yourself? (instead of concocting them in fantasy stories online)
IMHO, the first order of business is learning to be content with what you have, what you can produce on your own (and what your partner can provide for you when you can find one). Then try to recruit a competent/excellent male helpesponsor. If your SD is not destined to be your reproductive partner, then the less luxury he exposes you to is ironically better for you in the long run: leaving more room for your future reproductive partner to impress you. Given today's feminist indoctrination (premising that women are identical to men), it's hard for a woman to be a submissive good wife: who wants to be a good submissive wife when her friends are beating up their husbands and bragging about it and cheered on by mainstream media. Unless you are one of the rare ones who can be content with "leaving the burden of family decision making to the husband," a more suitable solution may well be co-parenting with a successful man: he pays for your own household, in which you indeed are head-and-shoulders above those surrounding you (your kids); his sponsorship can also enable you to be better off than your immediate neighbors, in a good neighborhood with good school district, but not necessarily the most expensive neighborhoods where the neighboring wives make each other unhappy via their competition.
My advice to my own daughter is getting "married" (de jure or de facto) by 22yo, likely the peak of a girl's "marketability." Have babies early while physical recovery is fast. Then pursue professional careers after the kids are grown old enough to attend schools. Don't obsess with the rat race or being a tax slave. She will likely find much more happiness in her own family (especially her own kids) than in serving bosses and business customers.
Directed by Frederick E.O. Toye. With Julianna Margulies, Matt Czuchry, Archie Panjabi, Graham Phillips. Alicia defends a man who claims to represent the person who created a new online currency against the Treasury Department, while Dana tries to play Kalinda against Will to help the DA's case against him. More About The Good Wife Season 3 Episode 13 Bitcoin For Dummies. Watch full episodes of The Good Wife, view video clips and browse photos on. Alicia has been a good wife to her husband, a former states attorney. – 3 min – Uploaded by CBSAt the end of season 1 Alicia was forced to choose between staying with her husband and. Synopsis: The ... Bitcoin For Dummies. January 15, 2012. 44min. TV-14. Subtitles. Audio languages. Alicia defends a lawyer who hires the firm after the government arrests him for not revealing the name of an anonymous client: a mysterious computer programmer who illegally invented a new online currency. Watch with CBS All Access. Buy HD $2.99. More purchase options. 14. Another Ham Sandwich. January 29, 2012 ... The internet, guys! Oh, that crazy internet with the dot-com and the computers and the gloyven and the floyven! Yes, The Good Wife is back with another look at a fun corner of the brave new world of the internet, but unlike that very shaky Facebook episode from last year, this bitcoin outing was a lot of fun. Much like last week, it gave us a relatively frothy case of the week with some fun ... Watch The Good Wife Season 3 Episode 13 - Bitcoin for Dummies Add to Watchlist Alicia defends a lawyer was arrested by government for not divulging the name of an anonymous client - a mysterious computer programmer who illegally invented a new online currency.
The Good Wife: The Good Wife: The Complete Series ... Season 3 Episode 13: Bitcoin For Dummies $ 43:32. Season 3 Episode 14: Another Ham Sandwich $ 43:51. Season 3 Episode 15: Live From Damascus ... Alicia defends a lawyer who hires the firm after the government arrests him for not revealing the name of an anonymous client: a mysterious computer programmer who illegally invented a new online ... "Bitcoin for Dummies" - "The Good Wife" Airing Tonight on CBS BookofNick. Loading... Unsubscribe from BookofNick? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 2.12K. Loading ... Emmy and Golden Globe winning tv series: The Good Wife Episode: Bitcoin for Dummies Bruce Wagner hosting remotely from CES, Las Vegas. Guest: Nick Flower, supporting actor in the episode about ... Two characters discuss Bitcoin in a surprisingly accurate and well done manner.