Dunno why you have to phrase it in a sexual manner
Interpreting “sugar daddy” in a sexual manner says more about you than the usage of the word does about me. (As does remarking on it at all: I don’t care whether or not Marx and Engels were in a sexual relationship… do you?)
“Sugar Daddy” implies Marx gave Engels sexual favors in exchange for cash or other goods, housing, etc. That’s the meaning of the “Sugar” part of the phrase “Sugar Daddy.” You made it sexual, not me. No, I would not have had any issue with them being gay, except for that being cheating in presumably monogamous relationships. I myself am pan, so I don’t know what you’re doing here.
The “Sugar” part still refers to the connotations of sexual favors, that’s the assumption with such terms. I get that it was a joke, I just don’t like the way sexual relationships are used in a negative manner when describing people, especially if it isn’t even true, like calling Putin and Trump gay for each other.
Literally the first definition listed agrees with what I said, because that’s how it has historically happened. That’s the connotation. This is just silly, that’s like saying calling someone a top in a relationship is totally platonic and doesn’t at all have sexual connotations.
So the “first” definition is the only one or what? What’s it with you and your refusal to accept that there are more than one way to interpret things, sometimes?
I’m sure Marx’ sugar daddy was very important for him.
Connotations exist. Why else would you phrase it this way? Why not just say sponsor, like I did? You said it’s a joke, so that means there must be humor to it, right, and not just a literal older person (who was younger, actually) giving money?
Interpreting “sugar daddy” in a sexual manner says more about you than the usage of the word does about me. (As does remarking on it at all: I don’t care whether or not Marx and Engels were in a sexual relationship… do you?)
“Sugar Daddy” implies Marx gave Engels sexual favors in exchange for cash or other goods, housing, etc. That’s the meaning of the “Sugar” part of the phrase “Sugar Daddy.” You made it sexual, not me. No, I would not have had any issue with them being gay, except for that being cheating in presumably monogamous relationships. I myself am pan, so I don’t know what you’re doing here.
(Yes, I know Marx was older than Engels - it was a joke, ffs)
Marx was born in 1818. Engels was born in 1820.
🤓
Don’t “umm, akshually” me to death, please. /s
deleted by creator
The “Sugar” part still refers to the connotations of sexual favors, that’s the assumption with such terms. I get that it was a joke, I just don’t like the way sexual relationships are used in a negative manner when describing people, especially if it isn’t even true, like calling Putin and Trump gay for each other.
That’s your interpretation. It can also refer to a power dynamic or state of affection from the giver to the receiver.
That’s like claiming the term implies pedophilia, or domnestic abuse, because of the “daddy” part.
You’re the one who made it sexual.
Wrong
Literally the first definition listed agrees with what I said, because that’s how it has historically happened. That’s the connotation. This is just silly, that’s like saying calling someone a top in a relationship is totally platonic and doesn’t at all have sexual connotations.
So the “first” definition is the only one or what? What’s it with you and your refusal to accept that there are more than one way to interpret things, sometimes?
Connotations exist. Why else would you phrase it this way? Why not just say sponsor, like I did? You said it’s a joke, so that means there must be humor to it, right, and not just a literal older person (who was younger, actually) giving money?
Because Marx was financially dependent on Engels. As people with sugar daddies often are.