Blogs and Stories
The Sugar Daddy Replies
“Melissa” and her man.
First, The Daily Beast published a confessional from a young woman whose life is financed by an older man. Now, he puts his mouth where his money is.
Recently, I wrote a confessional for The Daily Beast about my sugar daddy. In it, I explained how, after applying for an internship at his company, this man offered to become my benefactor if I would be his girlfriend. So we worked out an agreement, and have now been dating for a year. He pays my rent, the bill on the limit-free credit card he gave me, and takes me on lavish vacations. It’s a lifestyle that would be the envy of any young woman who enjoys life—or so I thought.
The response to the piece was far more critical than I expected. Its feedback section quickly overflowed with righteous indignation. The blogosphere released a storm of negative, judgmental analysis of me and my boyfriend. Supporting voices were drowned out by the furious ones.
“Realistically I can't promise that someday we'll have a big, white wedding, but I can promise that I love you and I respect you.”
Before I wrote the piece I told my boyfriend about it, and he was supportive. After it was posted, he read the story, as well as some of the comments readers had made about our relationship. He thought a lot of them got the wrong idea about our life together. The common misconception was that he was in the relationship purely for sex, and I was in it just for the money. I asked him to answer some questions on the record to clear up any misconceptions he thought the piece created. Here’s the transcript of our conversation.
So the majority of bloggers felt that our relationship was prostitution, with me as the prostitute and you as the john, mainly because of the financial aspect of our relationship. What would you say to them?
Well, I would say that I think of our relationship as pretty much a marriage. Just like a husband provides for his wife, I provide for you. I'm lucky enough to be able to financially give you anything you could want, and if people resent that then that's too bad for them. I think the biggest misconception with some of the readers was that we aren't monogamous. Neither of us have any other kind of relationship, whether emotional or sexual, with anyone else.
Another issue some people had with us was that you approached me after I interviewed for an internship with your company. Did you fear a sexual harassment suit or feel that the this situation made it inappropriate for you to propose that you become my benefactor?
First, while I did see your resume before you came in to interview, I was not the one to actually interview you, nor am I in charge of who is hired for internship positions within the company. I decided to approach you after I saw you in the office, and you had already been turned down for a job. If you remember, you were getting coffee when I first approached you.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
My Sugar Daddy
The writer is a college senior in Philadelphia majoring in journalism and economics, and is an intern at a public-relations firm. She hopes to work in broadcast journalism after completing a graduate degree. Melissa Beech is a pseudonym.
I think your honesty with each other is impressive. I enjoyed reading both of these pieces, and am glad the follow-up included his kind words. Best of luck!
You wrote an article that should have been beneath The Daily Beast the first time, but they have the right to publish as they please, so whatever. When you got negative feedback, you felt the need to write another article that would, what, change everybody's mind about your lifestyle? I feel even sorrier for you the second time around, but I'm really disapponted in TDB for publishing this second effort.
Still a whore.
I absolutely love this, have a happy 15 minutes of fame! As he said it is none of our business, so why do you keep telling us about it?
In the words of Benjamin Jowett, "Never apologize, never explain."
Whore.
You're welcome to have whatever relationship you want, but, come on, lets be honest, you didn't write the original article because you happened to find a rich boyfriend, and even in this article you refer to him as your sugar daddy. This man essentially pays you to hang around with him, and maybe you've come to like him enough to not resent it, but all the same, would you be there if he were poor? WIll you stay with him if he looses a substantial portion of his wealth? Will you stay with him even if someone far more wealthy comes along and is interested in you? All I will say is, my wife and I have stayed together through times when we have been absolutely dirt poor and there is no doubt in my mind that we are a stronger couple now because of it.
all this venom and you're not even homosexual.
I find it appalling that people will take the time to write remarks that are so hateful and full of anger and spite. I can only imagine that these people are blinded by jealousy and hence have lost the ability to express clear, coherent thoughts with the written word.
Furthermore, to suggest that The Daily Beast has somehow failed its readers, and/or society, not once but twice is laughable. 'Melissa' seems like a smart woman with her proverbial 'shit' together and I see no reason why her articles don't belong on TDB. As a reader you have the OPTION to read or NOT, so the blame is on you if you read one or both articles. May I remind everyone: FOX News is on the air but I save my ridicule and change the channel? I suggest you do likewise, and stop drinking hate-or-aide.
As for Melissa and her boyfriend; I must admit that I was envious when I first read the article. I told everyone who would listen about your life. Now I read this and I just think you BOTH have the world by the tail, if only because you have earned everything and know how to ask for what you want. My guess is that you and your boyfriend have a rather easy time discounting the people that call you a whore, suggest this is about 15 minutes of fame etc because you are living the life that suits you best. Regardless of the 'set-up' or agreement, how many of these people who write in are likely in a relationship where they are respected let alone loved? My guess is none.
Good luck with your education, respective careers and mostly each other!!!
The thing that bothers me about all this: while he says his feelings for her are genuine and he wouldn't balk the next time a younger, prettier thing walked by... am I to believe she would remain in the relationship if he went bankrupt?
Wait a minute ... you don't tell each other's families about the financial aspect of your relationship because it's "private" - but you post the details of the situation on the Internet?
You two have a warped idea of privacy.
Also, RYNRGSDL has an excellent point; if the guy loses his money then the relationship is definitely over, by "Melissa's" own definition of the relationship. Calling each other boyfriend and girlfriend, and meeting each other's families, is really at odds with the definition as posited in the original article, which was all about 'sugar daddy'.Something just doesn't click right here.
Again I may be a supporter drowned out in the haters. As a college student, this sounds like you have gotten extremely lucky; therefore, I am rightfully jealous. Best of luck and I have enjoyed these articles.
this seems to me the same type of relationship most men and women have without being so honest or defining it as such. this is an age-old dynamic about youth and money that runs deeply in our psyche as a culture. so why be judgmental of these two? they seem happy with their lives and arrangement which is more than most people can say!
I don't understand why these articles were posted on The Daily Beast. They make 'Melissa' look like an attention-seeking whiner - not exactly a resume builder for a future in respectable journalism, (but possibly a shoe in for bad reality TV.) The boyfriend is mad because the readers "don't know her" - well, she should have done more self-discovery, realized how wildly shallow she sounds and scrapped the article completely. I'd find special irony in the follow-up article if I were to learn 'Melissa' was paid for either or both.
While this is all good for the Sugar Daddy and you, it's not really fun for the rest of us. What kind of responses did you think you could get? We are in the middle of an economic crisis where unemployment is at a 26 year high. Many people are losing their jobs. Have you even looked at the news lately? People are suffering financially and I would say that many families are struggling hand to mouth, just trying to make ends meet. So when people hear that you are living the lavish life because your boyfriend gives you everything, it's not going to help those who are suffering.
You need to grow some hard skin if you want to continue to write about your personal life on an online publication. Not everyone is going to cheer up and down for you, especially in this economy. You guys are pretty much boyfriend and girlfriend now so I don't see the point of him being called a sugar daddy anymore. Those are the wrong words. Now if you excuse me, I need to get back to work to pay my rent.
I see very little difference between this relationship and "socially-sanctioned" marriages between older, wealthier men and younger women, it's just missing the paperwork. The only problem is that down the road the young woman in this situation will be left without any legal recourse to his hard-earned assets, etc., as occurs in the "legal" variety of this type of relationship once it ends in divorce -- but so what, that's her choice. I say leave them alone and quit judging, really. Instead of worrying about this couple why don't each of you judgers try to figure out how you can be more loving to others (and yourselves) in your own lives? That's what counts. This couple will eventually run into the troubles that all relationships face, it's just a part of life, no biggie. It means you have a pulse if you dare to love and lose that love down the road, whether or not assets or legal paperwork is involved. Signed, female in her 40's.
I think it's great. If you got, flaunt it and use it wisely. Please do yourself a favor, sock some of that cash away. You will have a need for it later.
Sounds like you two have a normal relationship...
You both expressed your needs and wants in the relationship in an open way from the beginning.
You went on more then three dates before sleeping with him (above average, very good)
It is not uncommon for a man to pay the cable bill or rent for a woman he is dating (I think it sends the wrong message about a partnership, but I'm not a millionaire so...)
I think you two structured the financial aspect of the relationship because you both get off on the idea of "Melissa" being a filthy whore. Evidence; "Melissa" wrote the first article in that tone because she likes the idea of being a paid slut and everyone knowing it, plain and simple.
Just remember... you can't make a hoe a housewife (exception Jessica Cutler)
To each their own. But are you really surprised that the feedback was negative? If the arrangement works for you, then fine. But you can't honestly expect the majority of people to find this acceptable. It's not like parents today are raising their daughters to find their own sugar daddy.
Folks: if it ain't on paper it AIN'T a marriage. The whole hyper image-centricity of this 'arrangement' seems so artificial as to be duplicitous. She wouldn't be with him if he was a mailman, correct? If it's so wonderful and real, why write under a pseudonym? The truth will set you free, even if you're head is this far up your arse.
Melissa you lucky girl. If that guy in the picture is really your guy, then you are both smart and lucky! Most of us have to skew much older (and much less hard body) to get a sugar daddy to take care of us: think Daddy Warbucks, not James Bond. Hey Mr Sugar Daddy, btw, do you have a hot younger brother who needs a Sugar Mama? please sign me as gorgeous rich gal in her 40s
Who cares about these comments? If you are happy together, you're happy. Those who say you're only in it for the money or you wouldn't be with him if he was a mailman... well, chances are, they wouldn't be with who they're with if their significant other was something else. Duh.
May the torrent of hatemongers descend upon my head however the truth be known to all of you--> MANY boyfriends provide monetary assistance to their younger girlfriends and they in turn, are certainly not categorized as prostitutes. You may have an issue with it but that is the way the world we live in operates. In the follow-up article, they consider each other girlfriend & boyfriend and even talk of marriage!
And furthermore, a piece of paper does not factually represent marriage! A loving and trusting relationship where 2 people find balance, harmony, and passion is just as valid. Ever heard of common law relationships?? Marriage is not for everyone and as along as both agree to whatever terms they wish is what truly defines a successful relationship.
Marriage is the meeting of two equal partners. Marriage is about love. You are married to someone, "for richer or poorer", and would be married to that person, without the big apartment or fancy cars... So, dear john, your relationship is NOT "pretty much a marriage". In fact, I don't recall ANY marriage where the man has had to pay his wife (or girlfriend) to be with him... rather, in a marriage of equals, you are with that person because of friendship, loyalty and trust-- all qualities that cannot be bought or sold. Or, as Paul McCartney once said, "Can't buy me love."
Hey Caradog - why write under a pseudonym? Because of your ignorant, judgmental ass, that's why. The amount of vitriol in these comments makes me sick - what, are you people jealous or something? There is some serious over-compensating here - the more vicious the comment, the more you secretly wish you were in her situation ... it that how it works?
UtenaH writes - "it's not very fun for the rest of us" - is it supposed to be? It is their job to make you feel better about whatever predicament you're in? No! The girl is just writing about an interesting situation in her life and wanted to share it. She's in college, living well, in a good relationship, etc. - why should she feel bad about enjoying it? ... and you somehow insinuate that she should feel bad because the economy is tanking?! SERIOUSLY?! That's HER fault now too?! You're the one who needs to grow up.
I wish them ever happiness - I certainly can't say the same for some of you.
Sleeping your way to the top is as old fashioned and sweet as a slice of american cheese melted over a wedge of warm apple pie.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.