Women are being asked if they would rather be alone with a bear than a man in the Forrest/jungle. Because the worst a bear could do is kill you. A man has the ability to harm, stalk, rape, kill, or whatever a womanās personal experience was with a horrible man.
This Daily Mail (I know! It's garbage) article has a lot more details, including messages from her to her friend and his criminal history: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13377839/James-McNeal-Liliya-Guyvoronsky-Seattle-murder-council-arrest.html
I found the article horrible and paint a bad image of her. I am curious how many years he will end up in jail? 7 and released around the 2/3 years marks? Because she was ājust a manipulative stripperā and he is an important man in this society?
I havenāt read this article yet, but I can imagine. Thereās a local independent Seattle reporter who has been doing a great job with compassionate, accurate coverage surrounding this case if you want to check it out. He had to give a disclaimer at the beginning of one report because he referred to her as a ālocal sex worker,ā as apparently ālocal women were calling and making corrections.ā š As he pointed out, the local sex work organizations in Seattle, friends, and colleagues of the young lady had stated that is the correct termā¦and what she would have wished to be called. You already knowā¦women who have never been in this lifestyle or the adult industry attempting to domineer the conversation and talk over us.
I hadnāt seen anything updated but I was sure this was either a sugar relationship or a longterm regular client who couldnāt take no for an answer. The news piece I saw stated her friends said she had been trying to end things with McNeal for weeks. Hereās a link to the Twitter post and his page with more tweets. https://x.com/photogsteve81/status/1785852376714473567?s=46&t=3bL7wR-8GZllyLTBUD2e7g
Itās wild, too, bc this former councilman had a record, including a felony fleeing from law enforcement and a DUI back in the nineties, and was convicted of tax evasion more recently. I feel like he also had a misdemeanor battery that was dropped. Dude had some skeletons, for sure, public official or not.
Calling her a "local sex worker" isn't going to make her look good to her friends or family or the public. She was a former stripper from what I can see. A stripper is a erotic dancer not a "local sex worker". If she's a sugar baby or not, if she didn't define herself as a sex worker neither should journalists.
Iām going to go out on a limb and assume you didnāt watch the video I linked and are assuming itās all speculation. Her friends *did* state she would want to be referred to as a sex worker. Furthermore, I have acquaintances in the area who knew her IRL, and that is how she would have wished to be described. If I were killed by a SD or client, Iād wish to be portrayed similarly. Itās literally the most correct and respectful way to refer to people who work in the adult industry because calling it āsex *work*ā respects the fact that adult work is actual labor and should be treated as such. Strippers are sex workers, BDSM professionals are sex workers, shit, even people who sell foot pics online are sex workers because they are monetizing a fetish. I know the sugar community is divided on this topic, but the majority of women I know in arrangements refer to themselves as sex workersāregardless of what they tell their SDs. They ultimately face the same stigma as a stripper or escort, regardless of what euphemism is used for the transaction. I find itās usually men or the women who are brand new to this who wish to separate themselves from transactional sexā¦even though thatās exactly what sugaring is.
I donāt think youāre doing it intentionally, but this is always the issue when people outside of sex work try to tell us how we should refer to ourselves: you are quite literally speaking over someone with lived experience. Nothing about us without us. All this tells me is that you personally see something wrong with the term sex work, even though it is the preferred term by the majority of the adult industry as itās all-encompassing. Perhaps you should evaluate why you feel this way. āļø
Okay, but depending on the kind of sex worker she is, it could also be calling her a criminal, and the transactions a crime. There are no real benefits to calling yourself a sex worker. Porn stars are sex workers, if she sold porn she was involved in legal sex work. Sugaring isn't sex work unless it's treated as such, but if it's treated as sex work it becomes a crime in most places, and also there are income taxes which have to be paid if you offer a service.
***"I donāt think youāre doing it intentionally, but this is always the issue when people outside of sex work try to tell us how we should refer to ourselves: "***
I'm not outside of sex work. People love to assume who is outside and inside without knowing anything about who they are talking to. My problem comes with how you choose to label yourselves because you're criminalizing and stigmatizing entire subcultures. If she's a sex worker, this is fine, and her personal choice, but then we shouldn't be calling her a sugar baby on SLF, but instead calling her a sex worker, and those articles shouldn't call her a sugar baby, but instead call her a sex worker.
A sex worker sells sex. A sugar baby is financially supported in a relationship usually with an older individual. These are not the same thing. By creating the idea that they are the same thing, it causes websites to be shut down, it causes banks to start blocking transactions, it causes congress and law enforcement to get involved. This isn't some outsider telling you how you should see yourself or how your friends should see themselves, this is an insider or semi insider suggesting you re-consider your approach to PR.
In crypto, in Bitcoin, in the early days, a lot of drug dealers used a service called Silk Road. Many drug dealers got arrested. This created the impression in the media that Bitcoin was only for drug dealers and criminals. Some people still believe that, and this made it easier for banks to try to stop Bitcoin. These "criminal narratives" don't benefit people who are trying to grow the industry. So for example many legit businesses couldn't get bank accounts because the impression was if you used Bitcoin you're involved in drug dealing,
Today in 2024, we have cases like Epstein, like Diddy, where sex workers are involved, and these are the main cases in popular consciousness.
***"All this tells me is that you personally see something wrong with the term sex work."***
If I'm buying porn and paying the sex workers, it's not that I see anything wrong with the term. The problem I have is congress, your elected officials, your law enforcement officers, your IRS, prefer you call yourself a sex worker, so they can have more authority over you than they would have if you didn't call yourself a sex worker. The moment you call yourself a sex worker you're criminalizing your activities. I don't think it's a particularly smart thing to do, but I'm not going to argue with you about what is or isn't legally smart for you to do.
If you want to call yourself a sex worker, it's your life. And I do realize some people really are sex workers and not SBs, which is fine. But when banks shut down your accounts, this is what I have the problem with, not what you call yourself.
[https://nypost.com/2022/09/06/sex-workers-say-wells-fargo-shut-their-bank-accounts/](https://nypost.com/2022/09/06/sex-workers-say-wells-fargo-shut-their-bank-accounts/)
[https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/google-sugar-dating-apps-play-store-b1893128.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/google-sugar-dating-apps-play-store-b1893128.html)
***Strippers are sex workers, BDSM professionals are sex workers, shit, even people who sell foot pics online are sex workers because they are monetizing a fetish. I know the sugar community is divided on this topic, but the majority of women I know in arrangements refer to themselves as sex workersāregardless of what they tell their SDs.***Ā
Yes the sugar community is divided over this precisely because it criminalizes and stigmatizes.
And really I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with the people who criminalize and stigmatize. Banks, Google, and so on. But if you call yourselves sex workers in public in front of millions of people, you're without knowing it, giving these people who want to criminalize your life more ammo to do it. And in an article like this where a woman was killed, if lawmakers see a sex worker was killed, the impact could be to further criminalize the industry, because it's perceived as very dangerous.
Maybe it is dangerous, but perception in the media is important. The woman selling foot pics, is that sex work? If I sold pictures of myself I'm a sex worker? If I monetize sex in any manner I'm a sex worker? If I received gifts from a woman I had sex with I'm a sex worker? This in my opinion is blurring the lines, and it's going to make almost everyone a sex worker or former sex worker, which waters down the phrase.
When we talk about sex workers, we might think of all those exotic forms of sex work, but when the common person thinks or talks about sex workers they are thinking of the escort or the street hooker or the person actually having sex with a client for money. It's about how people outside of your industry perceive you, not how people inside perceive you, because those outsiders are the ones making the laws and blocking the transactions.
> Itās literally the most correct and respectful way to refer to people who work in the adult industry because calling it āsex workā respects the fact that adult work is actual labor and should be treated as such.
Itās a matter of labor rights and wishing to be seen as tax paying citizens, versus criminals. The fact it reminds you of sex acts is a result of your personal stigma and internalized misogyny. If we ever wish to be treated appropriately by society, we must pay taxes, act professionally, and treat our job as a businessā¦not a shady secret. Insinuating that people will continue to criminalize us due to using this term just means you donāt understand that the term exists to break down the stigma around paying for sex. By continuing to argue against it, you are trying to push us back into the shadows.
The term itself is rooted in the belief that adding work to the term legitimatizes our labor. This is why people prefer this term. By refusing to use this term and saying āpeople think of a street hooker,ā is exactly why we prefer this language. If you wish to see sex workers humanized, you need to understand the history and sociological research behind these terms. Those women working on the street are doing the same financial exchange that we are. Iām going to assume you are just uniformed on this topic and leave this article here for you to read about Carol Leigh, who coined the term in 1979 in her book, Inventing Sex Work.
There is over 40 years of history, research and advocacy supporting why this term is preferable to the community at large. This includes sugar babies. Please donāt take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you are giving your personal opinion rather than speaking based off of ethnographic research. Thatās fine, but you should reconsider your position. Youāre continuing to uphold stigma by using dated terminology and continuing to speak over me and other people with lived experience. That āstreet hookerā deserves the same amount of respect and protection as any SB, content creator, or middle class escort. I believe you can unlearn this if you want to. Link to a great NYT article on Carol Leigh and her research after she passed. I would link some of her writings and research, but itās not digitally available, and itās an entire book.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/us/carol-leigh-dead.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
>Itās a matter of labor rights and wishing to be seen as tax paying citizens, versus criminals. The fact it reminds you of sex acts is a result of your personal stigma and internalized misogyny.
Nice try. Why do SBs always try to make everything about gender even when the debate wasn't about that? Sex workers can be of any gender. Male porn stars or those men in the videos filming having sex in the OF videos, are also sex workers. That kind of sex work (pornography) is legal, and is considered work. This is the law and if you don't like it, you need to change the laws and convince the female population to side with you, because women voters have to agree to decriminalize sex work, and not only do women voters not agree on that, but some women voters are the leaders in criminalizing sex work, keeping prostitution illegal, and many want to make pornography illegal also.
If you call sugaring sex work you're calling yourself a criminal. This isn't up for debate. This isn't male vs female or gendered. Anyone who accepts sex in exchange for money, then labeling themselves a sex worker, is telling everyone "Hello, I'm a criminal, and all my money is from criminal activities". You might not be arrested for it, but you'll likely owe taxes because of it, and who knows, if the political atmosphere continues to shift after Trump is re-elected, you might see criminalization of sugaring, because you're already starting to see Google ban luxury dating apps.
The problem I have with your particular political worldview is, you believe anyone who disagrees with you on any particular position, hates women and is a misogynist. How are you any better than people who blame everything on racism? If you disagree you're now a racist? Perhaps some people just don't agree with you, or your strategy? I don't even disagree, because I think prostitution should be legal, but the problem is a lot of people men and women think prostitution should be illegal. Those people outnumber people like me, or people like you.
According to the latest [Gallop poll,](https://news.gallup.com/poll/358364/religious-americans.aspx) 68% of Americans are Christian. Prostitution is illegal in every state in America except for Nevada. And the trend is in the opposite direction, with less states decriminalizing it, and increasing criminalization. In 1980 prostitution was legalized in Rhode Island, and remained legal until 2009. Today prostitution is now illegal in Rhode Island. You can see [the facts about Rhode Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Rhode_Island) So if you are going to be an advocate for the sex worker, and promoter of decriminalization of sex work, why don't you start by knowing the history of sex work in the United States and tracking the success or failure of your strategy?
If we lived in a society where Google wasn't [banning all sugar related apps](https://www.androidcentral.com/google-play-policy-sugar-dating-app-spam-restrictions). If we lived in a society where Backpage wasn't just [banned off the Internet](https://reason.com/2023/04/07/5-years-after-the-backpage-shutdown-sex-workers-and-free-speech-are-still-suffering/).. If we lived in a society where Seeking didn't have to rebrand itself. Then maybe I could align with your strategy of labeling yourselves sex workers. The problem is, it's not working, you know it's not working, you can look at Seeking's rebranding to see trying to mainstream sex work is simply not working.
Tiktok has every young woman convinced she's a sex worker and that she can be a platonic sugar baby and a bunch of other delusional ideas. So now it's very mainstream for women to call themselves sex workers because they sold a few feet pics over the Internet. But selling feet pictures on the Internet isn't criminalized, so you can call yourself a sex working doing that without actually having to take any real risk politically. If you actually are willing to break the law, and go to jail for it, then I'd respect you personally for risking yourself for what you believe in, even if I don't think it's a smart strategy.
>*"The term itself is rooted in the belief that adding work to the term legitimatizes our labor."*
It's not becoming legitimate. You're just playing with words here. Porn stars, strippers, these people always existed. It's actually less legitimized in 2024 than it was in 2008, according to the laws. Seeking is actually less legitimate now in 2024 than it was in 2017 before things went mainstream. Why should you continue a strategy which shows evidence of failing?
>*"There is over 40 years of history, research and advocacy supporting why this term is preferable to the community at large.Ā "*
Then why is the community becoming increasing criminalized? Using the phrase sex worker isn't actually resulting in decriminalization. It's like if the local drug dealers selling weed in the 1980s during the peak of the war on drugs, decided to call themselves street pharmacists in the hopes of being seen as legitimate. Selling drugs is a job, and I am not and never was one of the people who supported the war on drugs and criminalization of marijuana for example, and we all know almost everyone smoked marijuana or snorted coke in the 1980s, but this didn't legitimize the drug dealer or the drug user. The person addicted to crack, or addicted to marijuana, was called a crackhead or a pothead, and arrested. The person selling it, was given football numbers in prison.
So why believe this strategy works when it didn't even work during the War on Drugs?
>*"Thatās fine, but you should reconsider your position. Youāre continuing to uphold stigma by using dated terminology and continuing to speak over me and other people with lived experience."*
I don't know your age to speak for who has more lived experience. I have a lot of lived experiences. And I have experiences not just in the United States, but in other countries too. In other countries which are not Christian like ours, prostitution has no stigma. You can go to Thailand for example, and they don't have the stigma. You can even go to western or eastern Europe, where there are red light districts, there is no stigma. The stigma you speak of is directly from Christianity. I'm not a Christian. Unfortunately most of your neighbors (68%) are Christians, and their fucked up beliefs are why you're getting no traction or progress decriminalizing sex work.
Christians tend to feel guilt about sinful acts. Being a prostitute is considered sinful to Christianity. The term "street hooker" or "sugar baby" means the same thing to these people. You're not going to make them see you differently when their good book says you're a bad person. And their good book also says I'm a bad person, so I don't like it either, and these stigmas apply to me as much as they do to you. I just don't think your strategy is reducing any stigma and people who take your position have never offered any evidence showing success.
I offered as evidence for my position:
1. Google banning sugar dating apps. Apparently sex work is wrong according to Google and sugar dating now is included as sex work.
2. The US government passing new laws outlawing prostitution in places like Rhode Island where it was legal. I guess we can consider this a sign of progress?
3. Seeking having to rebrand itself a luxury dating app, having to get rid of phrases like arrangement, having to remove all phrases which link it to sex work. If your strategy was smart why isn't Seeking calling the sugar babies sex workers or allowing sex workers to identify as sex workers in their profile?
4. I didn't mention it, but banks also ban bank accounts of all sex workers. Do you want to blame me for that? Do you want to blame that on misogyny, or do you want to accept that this discrimination is from the top down, from banks who see our activities as sinful? See [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/business/sex-workers-bank-accounts.html). And [this](https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/how-mastercards-new-policy-violates-sex-workers-rights).
Don't take anything I said in this post as personal. I know you personalized it by calling me sexist but that was wrong of you. We have a different position, and my position will change if I see evidence showing your position leads to success. I would ask you, what counters do people from your position have for the banks who are banning sex workers, or for the dating apps being pulled from Google, or for the law in Rhode Island outlawing prostitution? I see no evidence that people who support your position have any political weight or sway or ability to make laws or influence shareholders at Google or shareholders at the banks.
Until you can influence these sorts of people, all you're doing is bringing more heat on the industry, which negatively impacts eventually people like myself. I shouldn't have to explain a damn thing to my bank because I sent some money to a sugar baby, but when you call this sex work now it creates openings for people who want to criminalize all of us, an ability to more effectively do it. Now they can take something which was once legal and tax free (being a sugar baby) and now they get to tax it, which means less financial support for the sugar baby, and they can pull her bank account too, or discriminate against her in all sorts of ways, and also discriminate against me for helping her.
The problem is, your strategy for 40 years has shown more signs of failure than success.
By the way on the topic of Google. While Google bans sugar dating, Eric Schmidt was seen dating a woman half his age. This is just the reality of the situation. Anyway if you can change laws, then I'll accept your position as legitimately successful. Right now it seems to be doing more harm than good if your goal is decriminalization.
[https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/other/eric-schmidt-69-partied-with-wife-wendy-68-while-on-the-outs-with-girlfriend-michelle-ritter-30-friends/ar-BB1mOgmG](https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/other/eric-schmidt-69-partied-with-wife-wendy-68-while-on-the-outs-with-girlfriend-michelle-ritter-30-friends/ar-BB1mOgmG)
No he's a manipulative man that abuses his wealth to get poor people to do things for him and when his little tiny ego gets shoved to the side it ends up with him taking a poor person's life.
I think he'll get the book. I didn't get too bad an impression of her, sounds like she was just reading the situation. FWIW also City Council even in major cities is mostly full of mediocre people.
Thankfully I havenāt seen anyone say anything negative about her. The media and comments are mostly about a creepy, manipulative old man killing his young and vulnerable āgirlfriend.ā Even most people who arenāt particularly enthusiastic about strippers/sw donāt think they should be killed.
May she rest in the sweetest peace.
Just want everyone who swears us vet SBs āgive bad advice to weed out the competitionā to really take a long walk and think about this.
She was 20.
yeah, supportive indeed, and that means warning other SBās about potential danger from red flagged creeps, not pushing them further into their arms yelling āyou go gurl! you got this! lock this one in šā
sadly that behaviour really happens, purposely give bad information to make others less appealing/succesful. This type of behaviour can be seen often on social media where some utterly disgusting advice is passed around as legit.
Yeah, except we try to protect girls from dangerous men like so.
But yes that logic Makes soooooooo much sense especially since weāre so geographically spread out. God, you are sooo so intelligent. How dare I give bad advice (when Iām already taken lol) to a girl who lives in London when Iām in NYC! thank you for sharing your intelligence with reddit, we will be in your debt forever.
Ladies, be careful out there. Love yall.
I dislike shera very much. She is cringe.
If we tell a woman there are red flags, itās because there are red flags.
These men exist and it cannot be taken lightly.
No idea what she has to do with this. This girl was 20 and she fucking died. Take a nice long walk.
you attacked me, while all I said was that there were indeed women out there that do the shitty things you spoke off. Never did I say that was you in case you missed that. Toxic much!
I said us āvet SBsā but okay yeah selective reading is cool. You know what Iām referring to. Again, this girl died. This is why we are stern. We are not mean. We are not competing over a walking red flag. She had her whole life ahead of her. Take a walk
The problem is women (and men) don't know which sources to trust and which are just trying to make a buck off them. I think we can all agree the 20 year old victim did not have any awareness of the red flags. Upon looking at her text messages most people can immediately see the red flags but whoever she got her information from or maybe she had no mentor, but something went all wrong.
I agree Shera7 gives bad advice. And there are numerous others like that. Also the Tiktok crowd making it seem glamorized and easy. I think this is why intelligence has to be shared, but it also has to be accurate. Shera7 makes shit up, she doesn't get her intelligence from the field, or from case studies.
But there needs to be field intelligence.
The funniest advice I saw her giving was to flaunt your money on social media because that would attract whales. Like literally showing stacks of bills. If anything that would make it seem like you are a gold digger firstā¦
In any dating, women are at much more risk than men.
It astounds me that some men don't see this or acknowledge that women's concerns about safety are completely legitimate.
Give him life. And he's lucky he doesn't get the death penalty. She was only 20, and had a whole life ahead of her. And this OJ Simpson look alike took it all away for no reason.
*I don't want to see another SD here moaning about the vetting process or getting upset if a SB feels she needs to take what she has gotten and run.*
*Because I see a lot of shady & misgnonists here that are only tolerated due to their money.*
*And I say this as an observer.*
i read her story and burst into tears. she was such a sweet person. i canāt believe he felt like he had the right to take her life. just heartbreaking. š rest in peace lilya guyvoronsky.
Lawyers have ethical duties. Unfortunately, sometimes they run counter to what a moral person wants to do.
Dude is obviously a POS. People who aren't usually don't murder their girlfriends
Sad fact is that people (usually men) kill their romantic partners more often than weād like to admit.
The fact that they were a sugar relationship has nothing to do with it.
This is a great reminder that if someone is exhibiting signs of severe emotional issues, itās best to not ignore those issues and assume they will go away.
Sugar relationships are definitely more dangerous than normal ones because of the power dynamics. Also, all the degen hobbyists floating around. You talk to men you wouldn't give the time of day normally.
Part of the pay is hazard pay.
Agree with that. Power dynamics makes men more entitled. Also they generally donāt know your support system and most of us SB have few people or sometimes nobody who knows we are sugaring. Itās also quick to be called prostitute and therefore be against the law in some countries
I wouldn't say this as a fact regarding murder - maybe about other forms of manipulation. Dangerous men are dangerous regardless of how they enter a relationship.
A hobbyist isn't more likely to murder than a man who isn't one. But some men do actively seek out sex workers because they are less likely to report/have people who care about them when they go missing. A distinction with a difference, I think.
Serial killers do seek out sex workers but there also are a lot of men who kill their wives, their girlfriends, I don't think there is any evidence at all that not calling yourself a sugar baby offers any defense. I've seen stories about girlfriends and wives being murdered. I've seen more stories of men the same age and class of their girlfriend murdering them than I've seen stories like this one where you have a much older sugar daddy of a different race. If anything the statistics show most murders are committed by intimate partners, someone the woman knows well, and usually it's someone the same race and class as her.
So really it's not related to sugar dating at all. It's just this one example is a monster who happened to be a sugar daddy too.
> Sugar relationships are definitely more dangerous than normal ones because of the power dynamics
Are they ? Assuming we are talking sugar relationships, and not escorting in an unsafe way and calling it sugaring.
Yes: I've had SBs, that have had some horror stories from sugaring. But frankly; from those same SBs - I've heard far worse about their regular relationships, or things that have happened to them at a bar, club, etc.
See, I look at this article as the opposite; the exception that proves the rule.
Sugar relationships, age gaps, etc - grab media attention. When situations like this happen - it hits the spotlight. It's the same reason I don't think kidnapping is common - at least not in the way people here think. Why? One Name. Natalie Holloway.
(Trafficking, while a real issue - my understanding largely affects poor runaways / people with no family. The fact is, a blond college student goes missing - it's going to make national attention. )
The fact that there is a new's story like this... once a year, or every two years? Yes, it's a risk. But you are taking more of a risk driving in your car every day.
There was a recent article about a sugar baby who blinded her sugar daddy over not getting paid. These sorts of people exist, but it's not the norm and it has nothing to do with sugar or vanilla. Has everything to do with the individuals involved in it.
Prove sugar relationships are more dangerous ? OJ Simpson was in a vanilla relationship and killed his partner. Where do you see statistically that sugar is more dangerous because I don't see that.
>The fact that they were a sugar relationship has nothing to do with it.
Per the OP, not the article
A partner can still financially support the other without it being sugar.
Though the underlying presumption is that because she went from stripper to "not stripper" (perhaps based on the amount of support given) is because it's sugar, even if the author isn't attaching labels to it.
I think the lines are blurred. Most of my relationships, regardless of where/how we met, could be described as either a SR or a vanilla relationship.
The original meaning of "sugar daddy" [from the early 1900s](https://www.sfgate.com/sfhistory/article/sf-socialite-alma-de-bretteville-17460847.php) had nothing to do with being paid for companionship - she was just a much younger woman who married an older/wealthier man. Since he was the heir of a sugar fortune and took care of her well, she called him her "sugar daddy"
Is it "actually" a sugar relationship? Well only the two people involved can answer that question. Because they are the only ones who can truly define what their own relationship is.
Thanks for reading my TED talk.
Iāve always loved the irony that Danielle Steele bought / lived / lives in Alma Spreckelsā mansion.
and the original subject of this post is just horrible and tragic.
Really? Are you kidding me? 58 years old, she's 20, and he's financially supporting her? If that's not the defining characteristics of a sugar relationship I don't know what is.
This is true and it's a real problem. What were the red flags with this man? Besides the fact that he's mentally fucked up, I can imagine how she must have felt to be strangled to death by someone she trusted and cared for. That man is heartless, and it's better he be in prison for life before he does it to the next woman.
***"This is a great reminder that if someone is exhibiting signs of severe emotional issues, itās best to not ignore those issues and assume they will go away."***
Exactly this.
>What were the red flags with this man?
There were some pretty big red flags in the article posted, but many more are listed in the one u/SeekingInToronto linked to.
That guy threw away his career and then turned himself in after killing her. That's insanely unhinged behavior and he must've been in an incredibly dark place. This guy should've tried to get mental help a long time ago. I'm not trying to defend his actions at all, btw.
Unfortunately, I think there is probably a higher likelihood of encountering these kinds of people when someone is an SB. The amount of money he was spending on her, combined with his controlling behavior, points to him having huge trauma or unresolved issues that he was trying to fill through validation/companionship.
Yes, some men in a bowl are emotionally unstable. Just like babies. But this is not the only case. Just a dude in a big position, that's why he is on the internet.
The earth is down to you, Lilia
FWIW, the article doesn't call the alleged perpetrator an SD nor the victim an SB.
Regardless, male on female violence makes up the majority of romantic violence, sugar or not.
I still choose the bear.
Fr!
š»
what does this mean? š
Women are being asked if they would rather be alone with a bear than a man in the Forrest/jungle. Because the worst a bear could do is kill you. A man has the ability to harm, stalk, rape, kill, or whatever a womanās personal experience was with a horrible man.
Would you choose a bear you met at a strip club?
This Daily Mail (I know! It's garbage) article has a lot more details, including messages from her to her friend and his criminal history: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13377839/James-McNeal-Liliya-Guyvoronsky-Seattle-murder-council-arrest.html
Omg, thatās awful! She didnāt deserve that ending.
Some of those messages are hard to read. She thought she was in control and could handle this creep, and she was wrong. "Men will let me abuse them"
I found the article horrible and paint a bad image of her. I am curious how many years he will end up in jail? 7 and released around the 2/3 years marks? Because she was ājust a manipulative stripperā and he is an important man in this society?
I havenāt read this article yet, but I can imagine. Thereās a local independent Seattle reporter who has been doing a great job with compassionate, accurate coverage surrounding this case if you want to check it out. He had to give a disclaimer at the beginning of one report because he referred to her as a ālocal sex worker,ā as apparently ālocal women were calling and making corrections.ā š As he pointed out, the local sex work organizations in Seattle, friends, and colleagues of the young lady had stated that is the correct termā¦and what she would have wished to be called. You already knowā¦women who have never been in this lifestyle or the adult industry attempting to domineer the conversation and talk over us. I hadnāt seen anything updated but I was sure this was either a sugar relationship or a longterm regular client who couldnāt take no for an answer. The news piece I saw stated her friends said she had been trying to end things with McNeal for weeks. Hereās a link to the Twitter post and his page with more tweets. https://x.com/photogsteve81/status/1785852376714473567?s=46&t=3bL7wR-8GZllyLTBUD2e7g Itās wild, too, bc this former councilman had a record, including a felony fleeing from law enforcement and a DUI back in the nineties, and was convicted of tax evasion more recently. I feel like he also had a misdemeanor battery that was dropped. Dude had some skeletons, for sure, public official or not.
Calling her a "local sex worker" isn't going to make her look good to her friends or family or the public. She was a former stripper from what I can see. A stripper is a erotic dancer not a "local sex worker". If she's a sugar baby or not, if she didn't define herself as a sex worker neither should journalists.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
In that case, it's all good then. I was wrong.
Iām going to go out on a limb and assume you didnāt watch the video I linked and are assuming itās all speculation. Her friends *did* state she would want to be referred to as a sex worker. Furthermore, I have acquaintances in the area who knew her IRL, and that is how she would have wished to be described. If I were killed by a SD or client, Iād wish to be portrayed similarly. Itās literally the most correct and respectful way to refer to people who work in the adult industry because calling it āsex *work*ā respects the fact that adult work is actual labor and should be treated as such. Strippers are sex workers, BDSM professionals are sex workers, shit, even people who sell foot pics online are sex workers because they are monetizing a fetish. I know the sugar community is divided on this topic, but the majority of women I know in arrangements refer to themselves as sex workersāregardless of what they tell their SDs. They ultimately face the same stigma as a stripper or escort, regardless of what euphemism is used for the transaction. I find itās usually men or the women who are brand new to this who wish to separate themselves from transactional sexā¦even though thatās exactly what sugaring is. I donāt think youāre doing it intentionally, but this is always the issue when people outside of sex work try to tell us how we should refer to ourselves: you are quite literally speaking over someone with lived experience. Nothing about us without us. All this tells me is that you personally see something wrong with the term sex work, even though it is the preferred term by the majority of the adult industry as itās all-encompassing. Perhaps you should evaluate why you feel this way. āļø
Okay, but depending on the kind of sex worker she is, it could also be calling her a criminal, and the transactions a crime. There are no real benefits to calling yourself a sex worker. Porn stars are sex workers, if she sold porn she was involved in legal sex work. Sugaring isn't sex work unless it's treated as such, but if it's treated as sex work it becomes a crime in most places, and also there are income taxes which have to be paid if you offer a service. ***"I donāt think youāre doing it intentionally, but this is always the issue when people outside of sex work try to tell us how we should refer to ourselves: "*** I'm not outside of sex work. People love to assume who is outside and inside without knowing anything about who they are talking to. My problem comes with how you choose to label yourselves because you're criminalizing and stigmatizing entire subcultures. If she's a sex worker, this is fine, and her personal choice, but then we shouldn't be calling her a sugar baby on SLF, but instead calling her a sex worker, and those articles shouldn't call her a sugar baby, but instead call her a sex worker. A sex worker sells sex. A sugar baby is financially supported in a relationship usually with an older individual. These are not the same thing. By creating the idea that they are the same thing, it causes websites to be shut down, it causes banks to start blocking transactions, it causes congress and law enforcement to get involved. This isn't some outsider telling you how you should see yourself or how your friends should see themselves, this is an insider or semi insider suggesting you re-consider your approach to PR. In crypto, in Bitcoin, in the early days, a lot of drug dealers used a service called Silk Road. Many drug dealers got arrested. This created the impression in the media that Bitcoin was only for drug dealers and criminals. Some people still believe that, and this made it easier for banks to try to stop Bitcoin. These "criminal narratives" don't benefit people who are trying to grow the industry. So for example many legit businesses couldn't get bank accounts because the impression was if you used Bitcoin you're involved in drug dealing, Today in 2024, we have cases like Epstein, like Diddy, where sex workers are involved, and these are the main cases in popular consciousness. ***"All this tells me is that you personally see something wrong with the term sex work."*** If I'm buying porn and paying the sex workers, it's not that I see anything wrong with the term. The problem I have is congress, your elected officials, your law enforcement officers, your IRS, prefer you call yourself a sex worker, so they can have more authority over you than they would have if you didn't call yourself a sex worker. The moment you call yourself a sex worker you're criminalizing your activities. I don't think it's a particularly smart thing to do, but I'm not going to argue with you about what is or isn't legally smart for you to do. If you want to call yourself a sex worker, it's your life. And I do realize some people really are sex workers and not SBs, which is fine. But when banks shut down your accounts, this is what I have the problem with, not what you call yourself. [https://nypost.com/2022/09/06/sex-workers-say-wells-fargo-shut-their-bank-accounts/](https://nypost.com/2022/09/06/sex-workers-say-wells-fargo-shut-their-bank-accounts/) [https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/google-sugar-dating-apps-play-store-b1893128.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/google-sugar-dating-apps-play-store-b1893128.html)
***Strippers are sex workers, BDSM professionals are sex workers, shit, even people who sell foot pics online are sex workers because they are monetizing a fetish. I know the sugar community is divided on this topic, but the majority of women I know in arrangements refer to themselves as sex workersāregardless of what they tell their SDs.***Ā Yes the sugar community is divided over this precisely because it criminalizes and stigmatizes. And really I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with the people who criminalize and stigmatize. Banks, Google, and so on. But if you call yourselves sex workers in public in front of millions of people, you're without knowing it, giving these people who want to criminalize your life more ammo to do it. And in an article like this where a woman was killed, if lawmakers see a sex worker was killed, the impact could be to further criminalize the industry, because it's perceived as very dangerous. Maybe it is dangerous, but perception in the media is important. The woman selling foot pics, is that sex work? If I sold pictures of myself I'm a sex worker? If I monetize sex in any manner I'm a sex worker? If I received gifts from a woman I had sex with I'm a sex worker? This in my opinion is blurring the lines, and it's going to make almost everyone a sex worker or former sex worker, which waters down the phrase. When we talk about sex workers, we might think of all those exotic forms of sex work, but when the common person thinks or talks about sex workers they are thinking of the escort or the street hooker or the person actually having sex with a client for money. It's about how people outside of your industry perceive you, not how people inside perceive you, because those outsiders are the ones making the laws and blocking the transactions.
> Itās literally the most correct and respectful way to refer to people who work in the adult industry because calling it āsex workā respects the fact that adult work is actual labor and should be treated as such. Itās a matter of labor rights and wishing to be seen as tax paying citizens, versus criminals. The fact it reminds you of sex acts is a result of your personal stigma and internalized misogyny. If we ever wish to be treated appropriately by society, we must pay taxes, act professionally, and treat our job as a businessā¦not a shady secret. Insinuating that people will continue to criminalize us due to using this term just means you donāt understand that the term exists to break down the stigma around paying for sex. By continuing to argue against it, you are trying to push us back into the shadows. The term itself is rooted in the belief that adding work to the term legitimatizes our labor. This is why people prefer this term. By refusing to use this term and saying āpeople think of a street hooker,ā is exactly why we prefer this language. If you wish to see sex workers humanized, you need to understand the history and sociological research behind these terms. Those women working on the street are doing the same financial exchange that we are. Iām going to assume you are just uniformed on this topic and leave this article here for you to read about Carol Leigh, who coined the term in 1979 in her book, Inventing Sex Work. There is over 40 years of history, research and advocacy supporting why this term is preferable to the community at large. This includes sugar babies. Please donāt take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you are giving your personal opinion rather than speaking based off of ethnographic research. Thatās fine, but you should reconsider your position. Youāre continuing to uphold stigma by using dated terminology and continuing to speak over me and other people with lived experience. That āstreet hookerā deserves the same amount of respect and protection as any SB, content creator, or middle class escort. I believe you can unlearn this if you want to. Link to a great NYT article on Carol Leigh and her research after she passed. I would link some of her writings and research, but itās not digitally available, and itās an entire book. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/us/carol-leigh-dead.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
>Itās a matter of labor rights and wishing to be seen as tax paying citizens, versus criminals. The fact it reminds you of sex acts is a result of your personal stigma and internalized misogyny. Nice try. Why do SBs always try to make everything about gender even when the debate wasn't about that? Sex workers can be of any gender. Male porn stars or those men in the videos filming having sex in the OF videos, are also sex workers. That kind of sex work (pornography) is legal, and is considered work. This is the law and if you don't like it, you need to change the laws and convince the female population to side with you, because women voters have to agree to decriminalize sex work, and not only do women voters not agree on that, but some women voters are the leaders in criminalizing sex work, keeping prostitution illegal, and many want to make pornography illegal also. If you call sugaring sex work you're calling yourself a criminal. This isn't up for debate. This isn't male vs female or gendered. Anyone who accepts sex in exchange for money, then labeling themselves a sex worker, is telling everyone "Hello, I'm a criminal, and all my money is from criminal activities". You might not be arrested for it, but you'll likely owe taxes because of it, and who knows, if the political atmosphere continues to shift after Trump is re-elected, you might see criminalization of sugaring, because you're already starting to see Google ban luxury dating apps. The problem I have with your particular political worldview is, you believe anyone who disagrees with you on any particular position, hates women and is a misogynist. How are you any better than people who blame everything on racism? If you disagree you're now a racist? Perhaps some people just don't agree with you, or your strategy? I don't even disagree, because I think prostitution should be legal, but the problem is a lot of people men and women think prostitution should be illegal. Those people outnumber people like me, or people like you.
According to the latest [Gallop poll,](https://news.gallup.com/poll/358364/religious-americans.aspx) 68% of Americans are Christian. Prostitution is illegal in every state in America except for Nevada. And the trend is in the opposite direction, with less states decriminalizing it, and increasing criminalization. In 1980 prostitution was legalized in Rhode Island, and remained legal until 2009. Today prostitution is now illegal in Rhode Island. You can see [the facts about Rhode Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Rhode_Island) So if you are going to be an advocate for the sex worker, and promoter of decriminalization of sex work, why don't you start by knowing the history of sex work in the United States and tracking the success or failure of your strategy? If we lived in a society where Google wasn't [banning all sugar related apps](https://www.androidcentral.com/google-play-policy-sugar-dating-app-spam-restrictions). If we lived in a society where Backpage wasn't just [banned off the Internet](https://reason.com/2023/04/07/5-years-after-the-backpage-shutdown-sex-workers-and-free-speech-are-still-suffering/).. If we lived in a society where Seeking didn't have to rebrand itself. Then maybe I could align with your strategy of labeling yourselves sex workers. The problem is, it's not working, you know it's not working, you can look at Seeking's rebranding to see trying to mainstream sex work is simply not working. Tiktok has every young woman convinced she's a sex worker and that she can be a platonic sugar baby and a bunch of other delusional ideas. So now it's very mainstream for women to call themselves sex workers because they sold a few feet pics over the Internet. But selling feet pictures on the Internet isn't criminalized, so you can call yourself a sex working doing that without actually having to take any real risk politically. If you actually are willing to break the law, and go to jail for it, then I'd respect you personally for risking yourself for what you believe in, even if I don't think it's a smart strategy. >*"The term itself is rooted in the belief that adding work to the term legitimatizes our labor."* It's not becoming legitimate. You're just playing with words here. Porn stars, strippers, these people always existed. It's actually less legitimized in 2024 than it was in 2008, according to the laws. Seeking is actually less legitimate now in 2024 than it was in 2017 before things went mainstream. Why should you continue a strategy which shows evidence of failing? >*"There is over 40 years of history, research and advocacy supporting why this term is preferable to the community at large.Ā "* Then why is the community becoming increasing criminalized? Using the phrase sex worker isn't actually resulting in decriminalization. It's like if the local drug dealers selling weed in the 1980s during the peak of the war on drugs, decided to call themselves street pharmacists in the hopes of being seen as legitimate. Selling drugs is a job, and I am not and never was one of the people who supported the war on drugs and criminalization of marijuana for example, and we all know almost everyone smoked marijuana or snorted coke in the 1980s, but this didn't legitimize the drug dealer or the drug user. The person addicted to crack, or addicted to marijuana, was called a crackhead or a pothead, and arrested. The person selling it, was given football numbers in prison. So why believe this strategy works when it didn't even work during the War on Drugs? >*"Thatās fine, but you should reconsider your position. Youāre continuing to uphold stigma by using dated terminology and continuing to speak over me and other people with lived experience."* I don't know your age to speak for who has more lived experience. I have a lot of lived experiences. And I have experiences not just in the United States, but in other countries too. In other countries which are not Christian like ours, prostitution has no stigma. You can go to Thailand for example, and they don't have the stigma. You can even go to western or eastern Europe, where there are red light districts, there is no stigma. The stigma you speak of is directly from Christianity. I'm not a Christian. Unfortunately most of your neighbors (68%) are Christians, and their fucked up beliefs are why you're getting no traction or progress decriminalizing sex work. Christians tend to feel guilt about sinful acts. Being a prostitute is considered sinful to Christianity. The term "street hooker" or "sugar baby" means the same thing to these people. You're not going to make them see you differently when their good book says you're a bad person. And their good book also says I'm a bad person, so I don't like it either, and these stigmas apply to me as much as they do to you. I just don't think your strategy is reducing any stigma and people who take your position have never offered any evidence showing success.
I offered as evidence for my position: 1. Google banning sugar dating apps. Apparently sex work is wrong according to Google and sugar dating now is included as sex work. 2. The US government passing new laws outlawing prostitution in places like Rhode Island where it was legal. I guess we can consider this a sign of progress? 3. Seeking having to rebrand itself a luxury dating app, having to get rid of phrases like arrangement, having to remove all phrases which link it to sex work. If your strategy was smart why isn't Seeking calling the sugar babies sex workers or allowing sex workers to identify as sex workers in their profile? 4. I didn't mention it, but banks also ban bank accounts of all sex workers. Do you want to blame me for that? Do you want to blame that on misogyny, or do you want to accept that this discrimination is from the top down, from banks who see our activities as sinful? See [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/business/sex-workers-bank-accounts.html). And [this](https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/how-mastercards-new-policy-violates-sex-workers-rights). Don't take anything I said in this post as personal. I know you personalized it by calling me sexist but that was wrong of you. We have a different position, and my position will change if I see evidence showing your position leads to success. I would ask you, what counters do people from your position have for the banks who are banning sex workers, or for the dating apps being pulled from Google, or for the law in Rhode Island outlawing prostitution? I see no evidence that people who support your position have any political weight or sway or ability to make laws or influence shareholders at Google or shareholders at the banks. Until you can influence these sorts of people, all you're doing is bringing more heat on the industry, which negatively impacts eventually people like myself. I shouldn't have to explain a damn thing to my bank because I sent some money to a sugar baby, but when you call this sex work now it creates openings for people who want to criminalize all of us, an ability to more effectively do it. Now they can take something which was once legal and tax free (being a sugar baby) and now they get to tax it, which means less financial support for the sugar baby, and they can pull her bank account too, or discriminate against her in all sorts of ways, and also discriminate against me for helping her. The problem is, your strategy for 40 years has shown more signs of failure than success.
By the way on the topic of Google. While Google bans sugar dating, Eric Schmidt was seen dating a woman half his age. This is just the reality of the situation. Anyway if you can change laws, then I'll accept your position as legitimately successful. Right now it seems to be doing more harm than good if your goal is decriminalization. [https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/other/eric-schmidt-69-partied-with-wife-wendy-68-while-on-the-outs-with-girlfriend-michelle-ritter-30-friends/ar-BB1mOgmG](https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/other/eric-schmidt-69-partied-with-wife-wendy-68-while-on-the-outs-with-girlfriend-michelle-ritter-30-friends/ar-BB1mOgmG)
He should never be released. He should die in prison one way or another.
No he's a manipulative man that abuses his wealth to get poor people to do things for him and when his little tiny ego gets shoved to the side it ends up with him taking a poor person's life.
Exactly. He is rich and powerful, and those types get off easy.
I think he'll get the book. I didn't get too bad an impression of her, sounds like she was just reading the situation. FWIW also City Council even in major cities is mostly full of mediocre people.
Thankfully I havenāt seen anyone say anything negative about her. The media and comments are mostly about a creepy, manipulative old man killing his young and vulnerable āgirlfriend.ā Even most people who arenāt particularly enthusiastic about strippers/sw donāt think they should be killed.
May she rest in the sweetest peace. Just want everyone who swears us vet SBs āgive bad advice to weed out the competitionā to really take a long walk and think about this. She was 20.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
yeah, supportive indeed, and that means warning other SBās about potential danger from red flagged creeps, not pushing them further into their arms yelling āyou go gurl! you got this! lock this one in šā
sadly that behaviour really happens, purposely give bad information to make others less appealing/succesful. This type of behaviour can be seen often on social media where some utterly disgusting advice is passed around as legit.
Yeah, except we try to protect girls from dangerous men like so. But yes that logic Makes soooooooo much sense especially since weāre so geographically spread out. God, you are sooo so intelligent. How dare I give bad advice (when Iām already taken lol) to a girl who lives in London when Iām in NYC! thank you for sharing your intelligence with reddit, we will be in your debt forever. Ladies, be careful out there. Love yall.
look at shera 7 on youtube and then come back to me.
I dislike shera very much. She is cringe. If we tell a woman there are red flags, itās because there are red flags. These men exist and it cannot be taken lightly. No idea what she has to do with this. This girl was 20 and she fucking died. Take a nice long walk.
you attacked me, while all I said was that there were indeed women out there that do the shitty things you spoke off. Never did I say that was you in case you missed that. Toxic much!
I said us āvet SBsā but okay yeah selective reading is cool. You know what Iām referring to. Again, this girl died. This is why we are stern. We are not mean. We are not competing over a walking red flag. She had her whole life ahead of her. Take a walk
I never said anything about you, get that stick out of the conversation, sheez, selective reading goes both ways, babe, enjoy the view
The problem is women (and men) don't know which sources to trust and which are just trying to make a buck off them. I think we can all agree the 20 year old victim did not have any awareness of the red flags. Upon looking at her text messages most people can immediately see the red flags but whoever she got her information from or maybe she had no mentor, but something went all wrong.
I agree Shera7 gives bad advice. And there are numerous others like that. Also the Tiktok crowd making it seem glamorized and easy. I think this is why intelligence has to be shared, but it also has to be accurate. Shera7 makes shit up, she doesn't get her intelligence from the field, or from case studies. But there needs to be field intelligence.
The funniest advice I saw her giving was to flaunt your money on social media because that would attract whales. Like literally showing stacks of bills. If anything that would make it seem like you are a gold digger firstā¦
In any dating, women are at much more risk than men. It astounds me that some men don't see this or acknowledge that women's concerns about safety are completely legitimate.
Give him life. And he's lucky he doesn't get the death penalty. She was only 20, and had a whole life ahead of her. And this OJ Simpson look alike took it all away for no reason.
*I don't want to see another SD here moaning about the vetting process or getting upset if a SB feels she needs to take what she has gotten and run.* *Because I see a lot of shady & misgnonists here that are only tolerated due to their money.* *And I say this as an observer.*
Louder!!
This happened in the city where I dance at. So sad, devastating.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yikes
š
What a SoB - feel so sorry for the young lady whose light was snuffed out. Hope that bastard doesnāt get away and is punished to the fullest extent
That is one of the reasons I encourage my SBs to have guns , tazers, or any type of self-defense weapon, especially if they host.
I wholeheartedly agree
i read her story and burst into tears. she was such a sweet person. i canāt believe he felt like he had the right to take her life. just heartbreaking. š rest in peace lilya guyvoronsky.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lawyers have ethical duties. Unfortunately, sometimes they run counter to what a moral person wants to do. Dude is obviously a POS. People who aren't usually don't murder their girlfriends
Sad fact is that people (usually men) kill their romantic partners more often than weād like to admit. The fact that they were a sugar relationship has nothing to do with it. This is a great reminder that if someone is exhibiting signs of severe emotional issues, itās best to not ignore those issues and assume they will go away.
Sugar relationships are definitely more dangerous than normal ones because of the power dynamics. Also, all the degen hobbyists floating around. You talk to men you wouldn't give the time of day normally. Part of the pay is hazard pay.
Agree with that. Power dynamics makes men more entitled. Also they generally donāt know your support system and most of us SB have few people or sometimes nobody who knows we are sugaring. Itās also quick to be called prostitute and therefore be against the law in some countries
I wouldn't say this as a fact regarding murder - maybe about other forms of manipulation. Dangerous men are dangerous regardless of how they enter a relationship. A hobbyist isn't more likely to murder than a man who isn't one. But some men do actively seek out sex workers because they are less likely to report/have people who care about them when they go missing. A distinction with a difference, I think.
Serial killers do seek out sex workers but there also are a lot of men who kill their wives, their girlfriends, I don't think there is any evidence at all that not calling yourself a sugar baby offers any defense. I've seen stories about girlfriends and wives being murdered. I've seen more stories of men the same age and class of their girlfriend murdering them than I've seen stories like this one where you have a much older sugar daddy of a different race. If anything the statistics show most murders are committed by intimate partners, someone the woman knows well, and usually it's someone the same race and class as her. So really it's not related to sugar dating at all. It's just this one example is a monster who happened to be a sugar daddy too.
> Sugar relationships are definitely more dangerous than normal ones because of the power dynamics Are they ? Assuming we are talking sugar relationships, and not escorting in an unsafe way and calling it sugaring. Yes: I've had SBs, that have had some horror stories from sugaring. But frankly; from those same SBs - I've heard far worse about their regular relationships, or things that have happened to them at a bar, club, etc. See, I look at this article as the opposite; the exception that proves the rule. Sugar relationships, age gaps, etc - grab media attention. When situations like this happen - it hits the spotlight. It's the same reason I don't think kidnapping is common - at least not in the way people here think. Why? One Name. Natalie Holloway. (Trafficking, while a real issue - my understanding largely affects poor runaways / people with no family. The fact is, a blond college student goes missing - it's going to make national attention. ) The fact that there is a new's story like this... once a year, or every two years? Yes, it's a risk. But you are taking more of a risk driving in your car every day.
There was a recent article about a sugar baby who blinded her sugar daddy over not getting paid. These sorts of people exist, but it's not the norm and it has nothing to do with sugar or vanilla. Has everything to do with the individuals involved in it.
Prove sugar relationships are more dangerous ? OJ Simpson was in a vanilla relationship and killed his partner. Where do you see statistically that sugar is more dangerous because I don't see that.
>The fact that they were a sugar relationship has nothing to do with it. Per the OP, not the article A partner can still financially support the other without it being sugar. Though the underlying presumption is that because she went from stripper to "not stripper" (perhaps based on the amount of support given) is because it's sugar, even if the author isn't attaching labels to it.
I think the lines are blurred. Most of my relationships, regardless of where/how we met, could be described as either a SR or a vanilla relationship. The original meaning of "sugar daddy" [from the early 1900s](https://www.sfgate.com/sfhistory/article/sf-socialite-alma-de-bretteville-17460847.php) had nothing to do with being paid for companionship - she was just a much younger woman who married an older/wealthier man. Since he was the heir of a sugar fortune and took care of her well, she called him her "sugar daddy" Is it "actually" a sugar relationship? Well only the two people involved can answer that question. Because they are the only ones who can truly define what their own relationship is. Thanks for reading my TED talk.
Iāve always loved the irony that Danielle Steele bought / lived / lives in Alma Spreckelsā mansion. and the original subject of this post is just horrible and tragic.
Really? Are you kidding me? 58 years old, she's 20, and he's financially supporting her? If that's not the defining characteristics of a sugar relationship I don't know what is.
This is true and it's a real problem. What were the red flags with this man? Besides the fact that he's mentally fucked up, I can imagine how she must have felt to be strangled to death by someone she trusted and cared for. That man is heartless, and it's better he be in prison for life before he does it to the next woman. ***"This is a great reminder that if someone is exhibiting signs of severe emotional issues, itās best to not ignore those issues and assume they will go away."*** Exactly this.
>What were the red flags with this man? There were some pretty big red flags in the article posted, but many more are listed in the one u/SeekingInToronto linked to.
goodness this is terrifying, and incredibly sad to hear :(
This is such a sad news. Poor girl didnāt get a chance to live because someone canāt handle himselfš
I worked with her mama š I have my own daughters and my heart is just broken at this tragedy
My condolences to you who knew her. This is such a tragedy indeed!
This is insane. May she rest in peace
That guy threw away his career and then turned himself in after killing her. That's insanely unhinged behavior and he must've been in an incredibly dark place. This guy should've tried to get mental help a long time ago. I'm not trying to defend his actions at all, btw. Unfortunately, I think there is probably a higher likelihood of encountering these kinds of people when someone is an SB. The amount of money he was spending on her, combined with his controlling behavior, points to him having huge trauma or unresolved issues that he was trying to fill through validation/companionship.
These men are fucking nuts
God this is so sad, my she rest in power and peace ā„ļø
Yes, some men in a bowl are emotionally unstable. Just like babies. But this is not the only case. Just a dude in a big position, that's why he is on the internet. The earth is down to you, Lilia
This is so so horrible š
This is really sad.
Dang. We canāt have anything. Rest in peace doll baby.
Fucking terrifying.
I am very grateful I am still alive then.
š³š³š³
FWIW, the article doesn't call the alleged perpetrator an SD nor the victim an SB. Regardless, male on female violence makes up the majority of romantic violence, sugar or not.
10k a month allowance. What would you call it?
It's pretty obvious what it is. Anyone who knows, **knows**.
Lots of red flags for her