June 28, 2005 :: Pour some sugar on me

I recently discovered a quite fascinating online dating/personals website. It's called www.sugardaddyforme.com. The aim of this site is to pair up willing sugar daddies with pliant sugar babies. Somewhat coincidentally, the youngun recently asked me for "help" moving out of her mama's house and into an apartment with her best friend. The "help" she was asking for took the form of $650, which amounts to her share of the first month's rent and deposit. Obviously, the sugar daddy view kicked in for her. I guess steak and eggs wasn't enough. How she plans to live on her own when she can't even cover her own rent... well, I really hope her plan wasn't to ask me for money every month. On the other hand, from a strictly mercenary viewpoint, $325 a month as a portion of one's budget devoted to dating, really isn't ridiculous.

This got me to thinking.

Not about the specific situation with her, you can rest assured I won't be paying rent for her or anyone else but myself (for one, I can't give away $300 every month!). But more about the character of such relationships, and whether or not they are really as reprehensible as they are made out to be. It's not a traditional, "equally yoked" kind of relationship, to be sure. It's more of a symbiosis. You give me something you want, I give you something I want. Some might characterize it as a business transaction, but I think it is deeper than that, because the two might have genuine affection of some sort for each other. If that is the case, if the man enjoys the company and taking care of a (very) young lady, and she enjoys being around him and taking advantage of what he has to offer, then why should we condemn that? Aren't they essentially consenting adults? Are there any victims here? Yes, its sort of paternal, but in a transactional psychology sense, there is no game here because the roles are explicit.

I contrast this situation with the classic "golddigger" scenario. In that situation, a woman will pretend she is interested in a man solely for who he is (or whatever the typical PC list of approved traits is) when she is really interested in what material things he can do for her. The mark (or sucka) is then taken for an emotional loop because he thinks they are in love, but he is the only one who feels that way. When he discovers this, usually he becomes embittered and determined to dog out whoever the next woman (or all the next women), because of course he can't get back in any meaningful way at the one who truly deserves his retribution. This breeds a community of deceitful users on both sides. Bad all around.

I realize that the argument I've constructed has also been used to justify why prostitution should be decriminalized. In some sense, that is the extreme extension of what I am saying. But I think the sugar daddy relationship is a bit more. Prostitution really is a business transaction. A sugar daddy and his sugar baby may truly be happy and comfortable in each other's presence, with genuine affection.

I'm still not paying her rent, though. But she can have steak & eggs anytime she wants!

posted by Rainmayun at 2:15 PM -