I am unsure I understand your last remark.
This seems more a result of the rise of a new medium than the rise of inequality, i.e. sex-for-money and pleasant-partner-to-keep-around-for-money have been around for millennia.
Exactly, China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Russia. Arguably less percentage in EU.
Or more like, the world has always been like that in some form or another. Sugar Daddy is nothing new, we just happen to have Internet to spread this information far wider.
It's a tough thing to express. Certainly, we feel like good people are ones who aren't simply calculating a benefit.
But that doesn't mean people don't expect a benefit, it's just that the people we admire expect it without crudely calculating it.
I'd say in a lot of ways, a person entering into a relationship expects benefit and expects to form an "us", a commonality, a partnership, with their other, so that what benefits is "us", the common group, and not simply the individual as a completely separated entity unconcerned with the other.
Almost nobody. But the benefits don't have to be some sort of personal gain: I'm sure most relationships are just for the "benefit" of someone who supports you emotionally rather than with money/fame/power.
Guy talking here.
As a man it's best to self actualize and see you-self as a person with feelings, emotions and boundaries. Take a serious look at your health, sexual ,emotional needs and address them individually distinct from each other. After that then branch off to getting sexual relationships with other people as you yourself can identify people with mental disorders and vet people who don't align with your goals and aspiration in life.
Not true. There are relationships (for example between mother and child) that are not based on reciprocation. Nothing in the definition of the word "relationship" implies expectations or getting something in return. It's a synthetic proposition, not an analytic (tautological) one.
Is the mother child relationship really not based on reciprocation? The child doesn't enter the relationship willingly which makes it more interesting, but most people that I talk to who want kids do have an expectation of why they want kids. I specifically don't want kids, so this is always of interest to me.
BTW, not trying to debate necessarily as I don't have a strong feeling on either side. I just found this article and your comment to be interesting.
Like giving money to charity, there is no personal gain from giving to organisation that will provide some unknown form of aid to children across the world. Yet it is worth it for some people to make the donation. As selfless as giving to charity is, having a child is magnitudes more selfless (unless you fully expect your child to care for you later in life).
Cost, time, stress, etc. At the benefit of seeing a part of you live on and be happy.
The way I see it is that although in most relationships people expect reciprocation, they differ in how strictly the people involved are keeping tabs on the difference between how much each is contributing.
In relationships like the ones described in this article, both parties are paying more attention to whether they're getting what they perceive to be a fair reward for what they are providing to the other, and should the balance ever shift too far out of their favor, they will presumably end the relationship.
On the other extreme, in a relationship between two very close childhood friends or between two deeply romantically involved people, one will often do nice things for the other without (I claim) necessarily checking the books to see all the nice things they've done vs. all the nice things the other's done in the past week before deciding whether to do the nice thing. They just do the nice thing, knowing that in the past the other has done the same for them. Only if there comes to be a very long period of non-reciprocation will the other party wake to the one-sidedness of the relationship and begin to reconsider.
> ... should the balance ever shift too far out of their favor, they will presumably end the relationship.
This pretty much describes all relationships except those where one falls horribly ill or the ones where one sticks around despite abuse.
> They just do the nice thing, knowing that in the past the other has done the same for them. Only if there comes to be a very long period of non-reciprocation will the other party wake to the one-sidedness of the relationship and begin to reconsider.
I think this might be the case in many sugar relationships. That's why it's sometimes hard to describe them as just sex work.
It's not only how strictly you keep tabs on things, the nature of the exchanged "goods" changes as well, in particular it becomes more asymmetric.
In an equal relationship, both contribute economic resources, emotional support, domestic work, sexual pleasure, etc. Traditionally, in the West, there was an asymmetry in that the woman provided the domestic work, the man the outside work with the concomitant salary; but the asymmetry has shrunk over the decades, due also to the increased opportunities of women in the work force.
In these sugar relationships, there is massive asymmetry in the nature of the contributions; it's an intermediary between prostitution (pure money vs sex, short term) and marriage (lots and lots of stuff vs lots and lots of stuff, long term), but arguably closer to the former.
All of a sudden the vastly over-represented "incel" population here on HN begin researching "leaving the bay area and becoming a digital nomad expat in Kenya".
Thanks to the choice of illustrations, it could definitely use a NSFW tag. But it's a surprisingly good article about a difficult subject. It's very evenhanded and even notes that there are young males who do this as well.
Sex work is a tough topic for sorting out human rights under the best of circumstances. It sounds like it is even more fraught in the crucible that is Africa.
>>One of her motives, she says, is to be able to support her younger sisters, so they won't need to rely on men for money
Aha! The very definition of taking one for the team :-) .
The news is that now it's wide open and more expected. They'll keep it doing well into their 40's, once you cross the barrier you can always use more money. And odds are that they'll find a taker, albeit an older one and receive way less money.
In my opinion, marriage in the traditional sense is a form of prostitution. Man as provider in a household is the same as man in the role of sugar daddy. It seems like in other parts of the world, people are more matter of fact about things. In the West, people seem to look at relationships through Disney goggles.
I am an outsider to some extent but it's interesting observing a repeat of the so-called "feminist sex wars" here in Africa. One argument is that if the society was more equal economically across gendered lines, then there would be no need for this kind of sex work. This is often used as an argument against sex work in the west as well, but I'm guessing the level of wealth inequality, and not just across gendered lines, is much more extreme in Kenya, so the scale of the difference could push it into a different regime.
I don't know what the answer is. I also don't like the idea of people on the outside imputing their mores unto another group when that group could advocate for themselves.
If I remember correctly 23% of norwegian males under 40 are childless while only 13% of females are childless.
And that is for having children; I'm sure in the "casual dating"/monopolising the most fertile/attractive years of women the top males have it much better.
I don't get it. You can't "monopolize" anyone as far as casual encounters are concerned, since they're by definition 'casual', i.e. temporary, non-exclusive, short-term, etc. Or are you implying that each man in that supposed top 10% has literally eight women waiting in line for him and abstaining from any other kind of encounter? That's a quite bold statement and not one I've verified from personal experience. But then I don't live in America?
I would guess that is an extremely low difference compared to historic norms. 8,000 years ago, women were 17 times as likely to have children[1], your example would be about 1.13 times as likely.
Aside: I'd rather have a classic article with images and videos instead of that constant over- and underscrolling, images appearing and disappearing etc. I think the innovation is a bit compulsive.
I wonder how people come up with these insanity. It does not add any value to the article and is so infuriating. Apart from that, I found the article good.
Someone come up with a „brilliant” idea, someone else who doesn’t care implements it. That’s how usually short-lived, standard-breaking solutions are created. I’m seeing more and more often on many websites an ad in this „creatively revealing” image.
I think it's nice that we have both. I don't think there's any risk that this format will replace text articles overall. (If for no other reason than that the economics just won't make sense in all places.)
This subreddit is dominated by women who make it their lifestyle to be a sugar baby. It's not a representative sample, just as a Star Wars subreddit won't be a representative sample of all people who watched Star Wars movies. I'd recommend avoiding experienced girls like that (hypocritical, I know, since I'm also experienced) and not listening to any of their advice.
Go ahead and ask something about it, the throwaway account is ready. Not in SV however. It's been interesting - e.g. I met the smartest (but lazy) person I know and I know for sure that one tech billionaire that you've likely heard of was also doing it.
Well, I didn't think about it before, so random thoughts - why this way at all? It seems a rather poor allocation of the money (unless you are super-rich relative to where you live). From what I heard, it ain't a cheap 'hobby', ie ladies expect expensive stuff for the 'services'.
Is the youth the biggest draw? From my experience highest quality sex happens with more experienced ladies, it takes them time to come to terms with their body, their visual flaws (all of us has them) etc. and just enjoy themselves.
What about trust? With prostitute, you know you can't trust her being healthy, with these ladies - is the approach the same or you hope she doesn't have 10 similar 'customers' like you?
I have enough money that ~$3-7k/month doesn't make a large difference. I've never bought anything additional for them unless you count paying for dinner and drinks and Ubers.
Youth is definitely a top draw. You might have seen this study: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/style/dating-apps-online-... - men of all ages send most messages to 18-19 year-olds. But there are other factors: not my experience but some men have fetishes they want to fulfill or they want to cheat. I'm actually doing well enough on Tinder to meet a new, above average girl every day in a big city. But I'm not in the social circles that would allow me to meet top current models or ballet dancers... But this makes it possible.
It's just my impression that could be wrong but I'm 90%+ sure that none of the girls I was seeing had other "clients." I'm picky and I avoid girls who seem like "party girls" and have no job or don't go to school. Also, only one of them had a previous arrangement and all of them wanted to have chemistry first. They describe most of the other men they met as weird and unattractive.
So I agree with you that you can't trust 80%+ of them if you care about not being just another client.
Come on man, what did you expect. For goldiggers to be good people or smth ? I just asked the dude a question, if he thought of optimizing this thing (we programmers no?).
There is one poorly made website that seems to be dominating this market. It's seeking dot com.
Yes, it happened. Two girls wanted to transition to a normal relationship after several months. One of them was this extremely smart girl I mentioned. But I just couldn't do it because of how we met. I did think about 3 girls (those two included) that I'd have no reason not to date them if we met in a different way.
1-2 at a time. When I'm single, I want to have some time for normal dating as well. They lasted from one month (or less if something didn't go well) to 8 months. It's a nice thing to be able to go out on normal dates while knowing that you can have sex with a girl just as good or better looking than the date and you're not cheating.
Only cash. I don't see why I would want to spend my time going to stores with them or shopping online. I know it's a thing - I was asked to but I declined. On the other hand, I don't mind dinners or even traveling together if I want a companion. But I don't understand guys who do the shopping thing - maybe they are really in love and that's the way for them to impress the girl? But to me, it's not a "real" relationship.
FWIW, this is rampant in many parts of Asia, too, with a similar discrepancy between traditional culture (Confucianism in China, Catholicism in the Philippines, Buddhism in Thailand, Islam in Indonesia, ...) and today's realities.
Several young women maintain several distinct social media identities: one for family, one for friends, one for "daddies".
And then Facebook starts offering your “daddy” account to your family in the “people you may know category” because it sees that you hang out with them in the same location
Most often, when they suspect you have more than one, they'll close the multiples after requiring you to verify your identity on one (or more) of them.
Source: I only have one, but I run in occult circles. Many folks keep their occult stuff seperate from their main friends, family, and work account, with some overlap. Sometimes folks will go through and turn them in, and most folks turn around and make yet another new one.
key word there. I hope FB doesn't crack down on it, people are (IMO) entitled to multiple online identities and false identities. I'd like to keep work and private separate; I have a friend who uses a false name to try and avoid her stalker, etc.
I don’t think they actually try too hard. I have two accounts which the most trivial of algorithms would have caught and haven’t been flagged >5 years in. (Always logging in from the same machine, no cookie clearing, in quick succession).
It might not be that much strong discrepancy. Although traditional culture is against sex before marriage, it prescribes strong gender roles. Male is supposed to earn money and pay things, women is supposed to be nice, gentle and provide nice feelings to him.
If the parts about lifelong commitment and no sex before marriage fails, but other gender conditioning remains, the various sugar daddies etc are logical/natural consequence.
Whenever I think about sugar relationship, I always think of the movie 和你在一起 (Together) by Chen Kaige. One of the character was a woman dependent on sugar relationships and her motivations, fears and the relationships she had with those men was very well depicted.
I wonder, by the way, whether the surge of this phenomenon is an outgrowth of social media.
In discussions with young women of modest means in countries with limited opportunities and huge income inequality (ie most third world countries), it is hard to find arguments against their impression that this lifestyle is their best chance for a good life.
"Prostitution is the oldest profession" is a common saying, but not to be taken literally.
Should be read more a sardonic acknowledgement of how innately transactional sex can be, and how the line between 'transactional sex' and 'not transactional sex' can be very, very blurry.
Especially in horrific pre-historical survival scenarios. Hence the saying.
I don't see where that expression brings in anything blurry. It just says that it is old thing. Transnational sex is kind of new concept, I dont think all cultures cared about difference in these terms. Marriage was transactional to large degree and ok, true love out of marriage was bad.
> Especially in horrific pre-historical survival scenarios. Hence the saying.
Prostitution and rape are not the same, really. Prostitution or sex for survival happened much more lately (Victorian era, any time with lack of resources, any time with lack of men, wars, world wars).
It’s way older than Ancient Greece dude. Google “monkey prostitution”: As soon as monkeys learn the concept of money the very first transaction they engage in is a prostitution transaction.
Isn’t poverty what drives most of us to get any job? I work because otherwise i’d be in poverty.
Are they implying that sex work is the only work available to them? Unlikely. But I imagine sex work is far more profitable and easier of a job than the alternatives - so maybe that actually makes it a good thing?
I really wonder what makes a news article like this interesting enough to make it featured in ycombinator news. I mean from the content point of view. Probably interesting to train a classifier. Has anybody tried?
The old huge problem with empowerment rears it's ugly head. The problem is that freedom is liberating for the powerful, and a prison for the poor.
For rich women, the ability to enter into these "sponsor relationships" is empowering, enabling them to do more. And as long as they can just end it on short notice, certainly empowering.
For poor women, who would not be able to eat without a sponsor relationship or outright prostitution, the freedom is a prison, effectively convicting them to lifelong sex work.
This would also work in reverse. Zero tolerance for prostitution is liberating for the poor, oppressive for the rich. Not just for women even, if you consider for a little bit what the effect on men is, it is even liberating for men.
For rich men, of course the ability to just buy women without needing to hide anything is liberating. Even for men who just want to have sex without condoms (often very strongly legislated against in outright sex work, and enforced by the women, for health reasons) it is liberating.
The same is true for many other issues that current society can't seem to make it's mind up over. For, example, for many young girls, the "freedom to wear the islamic face veil" is not freedom at all, because their parents have a very strong preference (and feel justified in using violence to get this particular issue settled). And of course that leads to further oppression.
But for women who are already in a position of sufficient power to just do what they want, whatever comes into their mind, a prohibition on face veils would be limiting.
However, in both examples it is only liberty at the expense of others that is achieved. Usually liberty for the powerful, and usually men at that, at the expense of poorer people, mostly women.
But we should allow this ... because Beyonce used it to achieve great status. And that it failed 99.99% of those who tried it ? Oh well ...
And there is the small issue that there are many more women for whom outlawing prostitution is liberating, where even just outlawing or socially punishing sponsorship relationships would at least provide safe sex and there are many more girls for whom a prohibition on face veils would be liberating, where it would provide a way out of a bad family position, an initial concession to "family oppression/values" that their parents would be forced to make. Because there are simply much more poor ...
104 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 228 ms ] threadReally? Both Dowry and Bride Price were not uncommon practices.
Or more like, the world has always been like that in some form or another. Sugar Daddy is nothing new, we just happen to have Internet to spread this information far wider.
But that doesn't mean people don't expect a benefit, it's just that the people we admire expect it without crudely calculating it.
I'd say in a lot of ways, a person entering into a relationship expects benefit and expects to form an "us", a commonality, a partnership, with their other, so that what benefits is "us", the common group, and not simply the individual as a completely separated entity unconcerned with the other.
If anyone wants a great starting point to help out I would recommend the talks by: https://youtu.be/lMBqFFnSS5U?list=PLe7tfp6fIaMwdMTW2O3-kkBiJ...
For Veting individual you can simply use `Transactional analysis` to quickly filter from people who're high value vs high drama.
They are very useful becaus they can be solid foundation of any derivation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction
BTW, not trying to debate necessarily as I don't have a strong feeling on either side. I just found this article and your comment to be interesting.
Cost, time, stress, etc. At the benefit of seeing a part of you live on and be happy.
In relationships like the ones described in this article, both parties are paying more attention to whether they're getting what they perceive to be a fair reward for what they are providing to the other, and should the balance ever shift too far out of their favor, they will presumably end the relationship.
On the other extreme, in a relationship between two very close childhood friends or between two deeply romantically involved people, one will often do nice things for the other without (I claim) necessarily checking the books to see all the nice things they've done vs. all the nice things the other's done in the past week before deciding whether to do the nice thing. They just do the nice thing, knowing that in the past the other has done the same for them. Only if there comes to be a very long period of non-reciprocation will the other party wake to the one-sidedness of the relationship and begin to reconsider.
This pretty much describes all relationships except those where one falls horribly ill or the ones where one sticks around despite abuse.
> They just do the nice thing, knowing that in the past the other has done the same for them. Only if there comes to be a very long period of non-reciprocation will the other party wake to the one-sidedness of the relationship and begin to reconsider.
I think this might be the case in many sugar relationships. That's why it's sometimes hard to describe them as just sex work.
In an equal relationship, both contribute economic resources, emotional support, domestic work, sexual pleasure, etc. Traditionally, in the West, there was an asymmetry in that the woman provided the domestic work, the man the outside work with the concomitant salary; but the asymmetry has shrunk over the decades, due also to the increased opportunities of women in the work force.
In these sugar relationships, there is massive asymmetry in the nature of the contributions; it's an intermediary between prostitution (pure money vs sex, short term) and marriage (lots and lots of stuff vs lots and lots of stuff, long term), but arguably closer to the former.
(Warning: Contains adult themes and graphic images)
That isn't enough for you?
Sex work is a tough topic for sorting out human rights under the best of circumstances. It sounds like it is even more fraught in the crucible that is Africa.
Aha! The very definition of taking one for the team :-) .
The news is that now it's wide open and more expected. They'll keep it doing well into their 40's, once you cross the barrier you can always use more money. And odds are that they'll find a taker, albeit an older one and receive way less money.
I don't know what the answer is. I also don't like the idea of people on the outside imputing their mores unto another group when that group could advocate for themselves.
Of course you’re correct but SSSHHH bro!!
And that is for having children; I'm sure in the "casual dating"/monopolising the most fertile/attractive years of women the top males have it much better.
[1] https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
Is the youth the biggest draw? From my experience highest quality sex happens with more experienced ladies, it takes them time to come to terms with their body, their visual flaws (all of us has them) etc. and just enjoy themselves.
What about trust? With prostitute, you know you can't trust her being healthy, with these ladies - is the approach the same or you hope she doesn't have 10 similar 'customers' like you?
Youth is definitely a top draw. You might have seen this study: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/style/dating-apps-online-... - men of all ages send most messages to 18-19 year-olds. But there are other factors: not my experience but some men have fetishes they want to fulfill or they want to cheat. I'm actually doing well enough on Tinder to meet a new, above average girl every day in a big city. But I'm not in the social circles that would allow me to meet top current models or ballet dancers... But this makes it possible.
It's just my impression that could be wrong but I'm 90%+ sure that none of the girls I was seeing had other "clients." I'm picky and I avoid girls who seem like "party girls" and have no job or don't go to school. Also, only one of them had a previous arrangement and all of them wanted to have chemistry first. They describe most of the other men they met as weird and unattractive.
So I agree with you that you can't trust 80%+ of them if you care about not being just another client.
@person_of_color Edit because I hit the posting limits: I've done it with breaks for real relationships in mid-to-late 30s.
How much do you spend monthly on your sugar partner?
Regarding my comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17901423 (this doesn't look offensive to me, or did you expect that men feel sorry for goldi)
But sometimes the world is nasty and we can't self-censor.
Do the girls ever fall in love with you? Or you with them?
How many girls do you see at a time? How long does the arrangement usually last?
How much of the remuneration is in cash vs luxury items like jewellery, handbags, phones etc?
Yes, it happened. Two girls wanted to transition to a normal relationship after several months. One of them was this extremely smart girl I mentioned. But I just couldn't do it because of how we met. I did think about 3 girls (those two included) that I'd have no reason not to date them if we met in a different way.
1-2 at a time. When I'm single, I want to have some time for normal dating as well. They lasted from one month (or less if something didn't go well) to 8 months. It's a nice thing to be able to go out on normal dates while knowing that you can have sex with a girl just as good or better looking than the date and you're not cheating.
Only cash. I don't see why I would want to spend my time going to stores with them or shopping online. I know it's a thing - I was asked to but I declined. On the other hand, I don't mind dinners or even traveling together if I want a companion. But I don't understand guys who do the shopping thing - maybe they are really in love and that's the way for them to impress the girl? But to me, it's not a "real" relationship.
Several young women maintain several distinct social media identities: one for family, one for friends, one for "daddies".
Most often, when they suspect you have more than one, they'll close the multiples after requiring you to verify your identity on one (or more) of them.
Source: I only have one, but I run in occult circles. Many folks keep their occult stuff seperate from their main friends, family, and work account, with some overlap. Sometimes folks will go through and turn them in, and most folks turn around and make yet another new one.
key word there. I hope FB doesn't crack down on it, people are (IMO) entitled to multiple online identities and false identities. I'd like to keep work and private separate; I have a friend who uses a false name to try and avoid her stalker, etc.
If the parts about lifelong commitment and no sex before marriage fails, but other gender conditioning remains, the various sugar daddies etc are logical/natural consequence.
In discussions with young women of modest means in countries with limited opportunities and huge income inequality (ie most third world countries), it is hard to find arguments against their impression that this lifestyle is their best chance for a good life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetaira
Should be read more a sardonic acknowledgement of how innately transactional sex can be, and how the line between 'transactional sex' and 'not transactional sex' can be very, very blurry.
Especially in horrific pre-historical survival scenarios. Hence the saying.
> Especially in horrific pre-historical survival scenarios. Hence the saying.
Prostitution and rape are not the same, really. Prostitution or sex for survival happened much more lately (Victorian era, any time with lack of resources, any time with lack of men, wars, world wars).
I don't really understand your comment. 'Transactional sex' can be both a new concept, and a thing that happened before the phrase was coined.
Isn’t poverty what drives most of us to get any job? I work because otherwise i’d be in poverty.
Are they implying that sex work is the only work available to them? Unlikely. But I imagine sex work is far more profitable and easier of a job than the alternatives - so maybe that actually makes it a good thing?
For rich women, the ability to enter into these "sponsor relationships" is empowering, enabling them to do more. And as long as they can just end it on short notice, certainly empowering.
For poor women, who would not be able to eat without a sponsor relationship or outright prostitution, the freedom is a prison, effectively convicting them to lifelong sex work.
This would also work in reverse. Zero tolerance for prostitution is liberating for the poor, oppressive for the rich. Not just for women even, if you consider for a little bit what the effect on men is, it is even liberating for men.
For rich men, of course the ability to just buy women without needing to hide anything is liberating. Even for men who just want to have sex without condoms (often very strongly legislated against in outright sex work, and enforced by the women, for health reasons) it is liberating.
The same is true for many other issues that current society can't seem to make it's mind up over. For, example, for many young girls, the "freedom to wear the islamic face veil" is not freedom at all, because their parents have a very strong preference (and feel justified in using violence to get this particular issue settled). And of course that leads to further oppression.
But for women who are already in a position of sufficient power to just do what they want, whatever comes into their mind, a prohibition on face veils would be limiting.
However, in both examples it is only liberty at the expense of others that is achieved. Usually liberty for the powerful, and usually men at that, at the expense of poorer people, mostly women.
But we should allow this ... because Beyonce used it to achieve great status. And that it failed 99.99% of those who tried it ? Oh well ...
And there is the small issue that there are many more women for whom outlawing prostitution is liberating, where even just outlawing or socially punishing sponsorship relationships would at least provide safe sex and there are many more girls for whom a prohibition on face veils would be liberating, where it would provide a way out of a bad family position, an initial concession to "family oppression/values" that their parents would be forced to make. Because there are simply much more poor ...