What’s The Difference Between Having A Sugar Daddy & Prostitution?
Posted by: Amelia McDonell-Parry
Filed in:
sex
12:30PM, Monday April 13th 2009
This weekend’s New York Times Sunday Magazine had a lengthy feature on SeekingArrangements.com, an online dating site which matches affluent men (or at least men willing to shill out what money they have) with women who are willing to trade companionship and often sex in exchange for money, gifts, and other perks. Half of these sugar daddies are married, while the vast majority of the sugar babies are in their ‘20s. The best news of all for these guys? Sugar babies outnumber sugar daddies 10 to 1. Brandon Wade, Seeking Arrangement’s 38-year-old founder and chief executive, says, “We stress that these relationships are mutually beneficial. We ask people to really think about what they want in a relationship and what they have to offer. That kind of upfront honesty is a good basis for any relationship.”
Some of these men — especially those shopping for women half their age — are digging deep into their pockets to pay for an illusion: that despite their receding hairlines and wattled skin, they’re still enchanting enough to charm pretty young women…. Men may use money as a way to buy themselves out of the normal obligations of romance, like accommodating a woman’s emotional needs as much as their own. But despite the power and security that the money buys, it can also undercut the very ego it’s intended to boost.
In those cases where sex occurs between the daddy and baby, some of the women say that an attraction is necessary, while others are quick to ‘fess up that if not for the lavish gifts and money, the relationship wouldn’t exist. “It would be nice not to have the money involved,” says B.K., one of the sugar daddies interviewed for the story. “You always wonder: would she still want to be with me even without the money? Does the money make me more attractive than I really am?”
Certainly, while most of these relationships start off rather businesslike, the story does illustrate that some of them do evolve so that they are emotionally beneficial as well, with daddies and babies sharing a mutual interest in movies and literature, travel and culture, much like any other romantic relationship. And some definitely don’t involve sex—one woman in the story was sent a hefty allowance from her sugar daddy in exchange for getting good grades.
But a large majority of the relationships are sexual and would not exist if money wasn’t being exchanged. So how is having sex with a man who pays for your school tuition, car payments, or designer bag different than run-of-the-mill hookering? Apparently, this is a hot debate topic on the site’s message boards, but the transactions made through SeekingArrangements.com are totally legal.
Most go to considerable effort to distinguish between “sugar” and prostitution. (Legally, at least, they are right; since the 1970s, courts have ruled that as long as the woman is paid for some service besides sex — housecleaning, companionship — the arrangement is not the equivalent of prostitution.) They say being a sugar baby is no more an occupation than dating is, especially when the goal of dating is to find a rich boyfriend or a wealthy husband.
So, wait a second. If I had sex with a dude for $1,000 and then dusted his knickknacks and watered his plants afterward, that wouldn’t be prostitution? How have sex workers not taken advantage of this little loophole?
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
mdtobe
wrote on April 13 2009 @ 01:48 pm: [report]
Not that I think prostitution should necessarily be illegal (what a consenting adult does with his/her body is his/her choice alone), but people need to get real and call a spade a spade. If you sell yourself for money, you are a prostitute, regardless of how you get paid or what you call yourself. A rose by any other name…
PinkRanger
wrote on April 13 2009 @ 01:55 pm: [report]
I suppose this is at least safer than prostitution…...but it sounds pretty deceptive. At least hookers are straight up about what they want and what they’ll do to get it.
retro chic
wrote on April 13 2009 @ 02:11 pm: [report]
With Mr. Sugar, at least there’s something of a 1-on-1 commitment however somewhat delusional on both sides. They think they know what they’re getting into, but someone is always disappointed or feeling ripped off.
Amelia, I think the key is “...paid for some service BESIDES (not in absence of) sex…”
But then again, it may depend on whose “knickknacks” you’re dustin’ off. Sounds like these sugarbabies are on their hands and knees “polishing and waxing” Can’t see you doing that.
Penthesilea
wrote on April 13 2009 @ 02:45 pm: [report]
I know this labels me a nerd (proud of it), but this question has been plaguing humanity since the Ancient Greeks! I’m doing my thesis on male prostitution in classical Athens, and the difference between a “kept man” and a prostitute was a MASSIVE legal issue, because while prostitution was perfectly legal, a citizen who had been a prostitute lost all his civil rights!
But there was a huge debate exactly like the one we’re having now, only with the genders changed—do gifts, money, and favors received in a sexual relationship constitute prostitution? For the Greeks, yes, but only if the money was the recipient’s original intention, and not affection or respect for the giver. And the recipient’s intention is the exact same problem that the rich men have with their relationships with girls today! Some things just don’t change over the millennia.
I love this stuff!
And I think that the legal clause “paid for some service besides sex” was put in to protect all those legislators (who wrote the law) from being indicted for soliciting a prostitute when they were shagging their secretaries and domestic help. I agree with PinkRanger—prostitution is at least more honest. And college girls have been paying their tuition through stripping and hooking for decades; it’s just the lucky ones who only have to do it with one man!
Little Lamb
wrote on April 13 2009 @ 03:16 pm: [report]
An article I just read on economist.com says that mistresses are most expensive by the hour, wives are most expensive by the year, and girlfriends are the cheapest all around. Ha!
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/04/high_end_sugar.cfm
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on April 13 2009 @ 03:41 pm: [report]
This concept is very popular in Japan. Rich men buy schoolgirls purses and stuff…..
HitOrMissJudy
wrote on April 13 2009 @ 04:28 pm: [report]
The use of the words “daddy” and “baby” to describe a sexual relationship skeeve me way worse than any talk of pay for play. Yuck.
Perfect Girlfriend
wrote on April 13 2009 @ 04:29 pm: [report]
I guess whatever “floats your boat”. There’s just no way I could be with a man without some form of attraction or a connection ...
Besides, one of the lines in the song by Eddie Money (Baby Hold On) is ... “money can’t buy you love”.
retro chic
wrote on April 13 2009 @ 05:01 pm: [report]
Ew, yes, HitOrMissJudy, your right. It’s almost like it’s one notch away from incest/pedophilia, but with the calculated loophole of consensual sex. ugh.
kolea
wrote on April 13 2009 @ 06:12 pm: [report]
Pink ranger: Sugar babies (oh god how I hate that term) are up front about what they want and what they’ll do to get it. There aren’t any pretenses of love and true compatibility. If a woman is on that site looking for a rich man to marry, then she is delusional, and if a man is on that site thinking some 20 year old college girl is going to have his children, he’s an idiot.
writergirl
wrote on April 13 2009 @ 08:09 pm: [report]
@hitormissJudy….I was thinking the exact same thing.
I thought the legal distinction was that she’s not getting the cash directly. Meaning, if their arrangement is he pays her rent, he pays it directly to the rental company. Ergo since she doesn’t technically recieve the money he didn’t pay her for sexual favors. And I don’t think joint checking accounts would count as him giving her money directly, as anyone can open a checking account and there’s no reason why sugardaddy and sugarbaby can’t have a joint checking account. Again…she doesn’t directly recieve the money—he’s making a deposit to himself.
That’s the legal distinction, I thought.
The MORAL distinction…well….if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck….it’s a duck.
pornqueen
wrote on April 14 2009 @ 11:24 am: [report]
I was the receiving end of a Sugar Daddy relationship. I ended up marrying my sugar daddy, he fathered my 2 boys & gave me a great life (emotionally,sexually, financially, in that order). After 14 years we called it quits. He remains very much involved in our lifes & it is a great father. I stil considered him my best friend and I know he feels the same. I know this may be an exception to the rule. But once I started to develop feelings for him I told him & the “sugar” was no longer part of the equation. He came to my life, provided for me while I provided for him on whatever he needed. To tell you the truth most of the time it was just attention that he needed, not so much sex. I’m not going to lie, sex was a HUGE factor for both of us, but after a while it just became more. I loved him, I mean, I still do, as the father of my children and a very, very dear friend but that’s it. So to answer the question, a prostitute gives you sex & a “sugar daddy recipient” gives you sex and more. The more part makes all the difference.
RichieRich
wrote on April 15 2009 @ 12:38 pm: [report]
I’ve heard of this sort of thing on more casual sites, or websites specifically established for the purpose of exchanging a man’s wallet for the mere idea of making a woman happy. Some guys are actually turned on by that sort of thing—it’s kind of a dom/slave relationship.
Sofjna
wrote on April 16 2009 @ 12:20 am: [report]
People are always quick to criticize sugarbabies (I keep thinking of that damn candy), but what about housewives who do nothing but spend their husbands’ money on facials and new clothes while doing nothing else? Same concept. Except they have a little piece of paper to make it legal, and therefor better. At least sugarbabies aren’t trying to convinvce themselves they’re better, or living under false pretenses.
CuteCora
wrote on April 16 2009 @ 06:53 am: [report]
I think that having a Sugar daddy is no different than being a paid hooker. Simply it is all the same, maybe the only difference is that a Sugar baby ( if thats what we are refering to them these days) is maybe the sugar daddy/sugar baby are just doing their deed alttle more classy then a hooker on the corner so to speak, however when it all boils down to it you can call a Spade a Spade, which means that anyone who uses sex as a tool for money… gifts etc is a hooker!
40yrolddad
wrote on April 16 2009 @ 07:47 am: [report]
morally not much but in practice one will get you branded a “sex offender” for the rest of your life! personally I’m not in the market for either (& can’t imagine ever being) but given our societies general lack of sanity when it comes to sex I can certainly see why some go to such great lengths to put up such facades. remember, laws are made by people who think there is a moral difference between bribery & “campaign contributions/lobbying” so at least they’re consistent in their inconsistency…
retro chic
wrote on April 16 2009 @ 08:39 am: [report]
So, is there a difference? Just the added hypocrisy of the Sugar euphemism, and fewer STDs, hopefully. In Europe, they don’t have the same hypocrisy about sex and alternative “arrangements” that we do. And, 40yrolddad, if referring to “our society’s” you mean the U.S., I agree.
Personally, other than out-and-out call girl/street prostitution, I don’t think business and sexual relationships should mix… someone is always left wanting.
eatmybook
wrote on April 17 2009 @ 10:53 am: [report]
I think the difference is probably that a prostitute can have sex with other men, I bet the baby has to stick to the one guy.
I think it’s fine. I think it’s no one’s business who we have sex with, how we have sex with them, or how often (or how many).
We have to get out of each other’s bedrooms. Except to watch of course.
danijerzygirl
wrote on April 18 2009 @ 07:14 am: [report]
Not too much. I married my sugar daddy. When we were dating if he wanted something a bit different, like oral in a semi-public place, anal sex, something a bit kinky; I would always wind up with a bouquet of flowers, some jewelery, take me out shopping for a new blouse or something special. I get what I want, he gets what he wants and he believes its because I love him as opposed to him knowing he married some slut who will give him head while he drives us up the Turnpike to my parents home.
SarahLove
wrote on April 20 2009 @ 02:18 pm: [report]
How about this one, if a woman is dating a married man and clearly only there for money, is she a prostitute? There’s this girl writing about being the other woman on kissanddish.com. I don’t know whether to shake her and scream at her or feel sorry for her. Here’s her latest story in her saga:
http://www.kissanddish.com/website/?tab=stories&pg=view_story&story_id=265
bambi
wrote on April 21 2009 @ 01:50 am: [report]
There is a difference between the two. The Secret Diaries of a London Call girl shows the life of an escort; however she prefers not to see the same man twice. A sugar daddy has some sort of relationship with the girl- whether it be materialistic or that sense of closeness and companionship he has lost with his spouse.
Imagine having a boyfriend and as time goes by things start to get blah and old. Or you two are just really serious together. Then you meet a playboy/ boy toy who brings out your old playful self, and you continue seeing him and develop a romantic relationship with him- paying for his meals & buying him presents because you want to and it makes you happy. There is a huge difference between doing this and paying for one night stands.