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?
Are jokes not communist enough for you or something? It was funny and you’ve spent WAY too much time not just laughing at the funny joke. Maybe friends are a bit much for someone terminally online but you’ve never picked up a tab or bought something for someone and had them joke that you’re their sugar daddy?
Engels was very much Marx’s sugar daddy as everyone would use the phase when joking about someone else paying someones way.
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.
But where’s the humor? Sponsors are also depended upon.
Are jokes not communist enough for you or something? It was funny and you’ve spent WAY too much time not just laughing at the funny joke. Maybe friends are a bit much for someone terminally online but you’ve never picked up a tab or bought something for someone and had them joke that you’re their sugar daddy?
Engels was very much Marx’s sugar daddy as everyone would use the phase when joking about someone else paying someones way.
The power dynamic is funnier that way. It implies an infantilisation of Marx and that he was only friends with Engels because of the money.
There, you’ve made me explain my own joke. I hope you’re happy. /s
It’s not funny and you didn’t intend it to be funny, you clearly intended it to be derogatory