[JonnyR]

So, I've been fascinated by this concept of "Sugar Dating".

“Sugar dating” = two adults of consensual age agree that one person offers financial help/gifts/experiences and the other offers time/companionship. Every setup is different, and it could fall along any gender identity or lines.

While I was really put off by this idea at first (I don't need to pay someone for their time or affection!), the more I thought about it and talked to others, the more I started to understand both sides a little better.

A lot of guys love the arrangement -- it's clear up front, nobody's feelings are going to get hurt, etc. Likewise, women tend to like it as well for financial, companionship, and other reasons.

This must be a trending thing on social media because the prevalence of it has skyrocketed -- I've seen more women openly asking for these types of relationships in the dating apps that I use than I've ever seen previously in my entire life.

What strikes me is how OPEN people are about it; no shame, remorse, or shyness.

While I've never actually participated in one of these setups (I've certainly been asked!), I was curious if anyone else had and what your thoughts were?

• Are there legit benefits that get overlooked? Money, mentorship, companionship, lifestyle?
• How does money change boundaries and autonomy? What makes an arrangement feel fair vs. lopsided?
• Do TikTok takes help or harm? Does the “sugar” label hide the range of real relationships?
• How do LGBTQ+ or nontraditional role/age setups change things?

If you’ve been in one of these, what do you wish you’d known before? If you haven’t, what’s your biggest question or concern?

[Alison H.]

I have not, but the way I look at it, if it makes people happy, then it works for them. I'd have concerns as far as what's expected in return for the financial support. Like, is it laid out that $X per month gets you this much time with the person per week, or X number of dates or sexual favors, or...? Like, how is that contracted? I'd assume there'd BE a contract for it to establish boundaries from the start. At least I hope there would be.

[atskitty2]

I've never been involved in a relationship like this, but I see scenarios where this would work and likely be less damaging than other options. Can't say it didn't cross my mind a time or 2, though I never seriously considered it.

I think as long as there are boundaries and respect, a clear outline of expectations and communication, it is a consensual and fine way to get your needs met.

[JonnyR]

Well, that's the thing I guess -- for me, I haven't ever officially done it, so I don't even know how the parameters are worked out, how they are "enforced" etc.

Obviously, there is no contract -- officially -- I guess it would just be good faith until someone breaks the covenant either way?

This also then bleeds into the territory of ethical non-monogomany and if this really is that different?

I guess in that situation there is no implied financial investment (but there surely could be a situational one, or habitual one), whereby one person is paying for the other OVERTLY or with expectations, but in a lot of traditional relationships a man might also be inclined to pay for dinners, dates, outings, clothing, etc for his partner -- whether not they are monogomous.

So yeah, this is really interesting in terms of the nomenclature and how people define and work these things out.

[atskitty2]

When I think about this type of relationship, simply because there IS the introduction of money exchange for services, and it is a transaction taking place, it brings with it a more business-like approach. It is less feeling-based, emotions and social expectations and all that goes with that, so, whether there is a written contract in place, there is an agreement verbally for expectation and services rendered.

I hate to use the analogy of prostitution, but it's like any other service. For an oral experience, $100. For anal, $200. No written contract (I mean, I'm assuming there's not, I've not personally paid for sexual services) is signed for that, it's an agreement. Or, when I used to hire dog-sitters w/Rover. There's a certain amount that's done through the app, but the real meat and potatoes is agreed upon in person when meeting and discussing the needs and abilities of each party. Then you proceed with financials.

I am guessing these sugar-relationships operate similarly. One party shows an interest and says, "hey, I'd like to have Saturday nights with you, and dinner once through the week. In exchange, I'll give you $1000 cash, a gift card to X shop for cocktail attire, and the physical expectations can be discussed after meeting. Then, I would guess there's some further discussion, a getting to know you phase and assessment for compatibility and all that.

I know the stereotype is there regarding women who date solely for a free meal and I've certainly known women that make no secret about this. I think this sugar- thing makes everything a little more transparent. It evens the playing field for men, mostly, and it seems much more above-board than what some people do, and eliminates all the game-playing. So, as you suggest, JonnyR a lot of this is more subtle, but the transactional component is often there, and it can be male-dominant or female, but more often male.

All this is my speculation, and an attempt to further the discussion. Hope someone has some real experience to share and let's get the nitty-gritty deets on this fun topic!

[JonnyR]

Gulp...those are expensive services! ? I do like the idea of an a la carte menu!

Seriously, though, when this offer was presented to me online, I had a hard time wrapping my head around it. We didn't expressly cover "Fees" per se, but they were talking in generalities, suggesting that I supported them financially in exchange for their company and an intimate relationship.

So, what I've read and seen is that this can run the gamut: paying for school, paying for rent, giving a stipend, shopping sprees, all-inslusive dates, etc -- but the very act of making it a "sugar daddy" implies more than just paying for your meal when we go out -- it has more of a supportive nature for more than that.

I asked the person who expressed this to me what makes this arrangement different than a prostitute, but we never got that far in discussing those nuances.

Oh, and one more "catch" to this, at least with some of these proposals, the women (usually) ALSO have to "like" you -- meaning, if she isn't feeling it physically, or otherwise, she won't go through with the arrangement -- so there's that.

And they also ask for monogamy oftentimes as well!

Go figure...

I guess folks just want to have their cake and eat it too!

[jns]

Oh, and one more "catch" to this, at least with some of these proposals, the women (usually) ALSO have to "like" you -- meaning, if she isn't feeling it physically, or otherwise, she won't go through with the arrangement -- so there's that.

And they also ask for monogamy oftentimes as well!

Go figure...

I guess folks just want to have their cake and eat it too!

I can see why a woman entering such a relationship as the person receiving the gifts would want to at least like the sugar daddy. It means the relationship should be easier, without butting heads most of the time.

I can also understand the request for monogamy, especially if it is by both parties. It lessens the chance of catching something and increases the availability for getting together. It may also have an economic component where larger gifts can be expected.

As with contracts of all types, people want to get as much as they can.

I remember more than 40 years ago, after I had moved out west, that some young women (late teens and twenties) were actively seeking sugar daddies.

[Alison H.]

I can also understand the request for monogamy, especially if it is by both parties. It lessens the chance of catching something and increases the availability for getting together.

That was my first thought as well. It lessens the chance of carting around someone else's STI... especially if the sexual encounters do not involve protection. (Which I'd think could also be part of the transaction/contract for some, at least.)

I understand needing to like the sugar daddy, though. I mean, when you think about it, it'd be like working any other job right? If you're working at a place you hate (or a guy you don't like), unless she's a really good actress, that's gonna be evident pretty quick.

[JonnyR]

So, this then begs the question that I had originally -- why is this different than just regular "dating"?

In fact, a lot of women "joke" nowadays about how they plan 2-3 "dinner" dates a week so that they don't have to pay for food themselves. Really.

So, if the woman has to like the sugar daddy, they are monogamous, and it aligns with sort of a regular relationship, what defines this vs. just a woman who dates guys to get free stuff, get invited places, and basically be taken care of?

Is it just the social/spoken contract?

What about the unspoken contract of when folks with "traditional" values (I often hear the phrase "provider mindset/protector" on dating profiles for what women want -- I take this to be a covert way of saying "pay for my stuff!")?

[atskitty2]

JonnyR It's the end game. The goals of dating are generally to build a future together-find a long term companion.

Having a sugar- is just meeting some social need, or financial need. To me, that's the big difference. I think there are many others, but I don't think there's any ideas of making it a long term thing. Whether you're the sugar baby, or the daddy/momma, it seems like there's really no illusion of building a life together.

I think this is especially advantageous for men, who seem to feel taken advantage of by the women who do try to use them for meals, or whatever. This is a very clear service for price transaction.

Sure, long term can happen with sugars too, but how often does the "Pretty Woman" movie play out? Idk, but I'd guess not often.

After my divorce, many years ago now, when I started dabbling in dating again, there was an expectation or, maybe it was the scummy underbelly of dating, about women using men for a "free meal" when there was no interest in them at all. My girlfriends were pretty open about that intent, and for a minute, I bought into that concept, to some degree I guess. I never accepted a date for the sole reason of getting dinner, but "well, even if I don't end up liking him..."
I quickly grew out of that - it felt wrong, and I proceeded to then lecture my friends on the ridiculous nature of this approach. lol

Especially my bestie, I told her it just didn't seem like a great foundation for building a relationship if your first idea is what you can get out of him, instead of meeting to genuinely talk, ask questions, and answer questions. So, I went quickly to the coffee date, or cocktails only, and I would often pay for my own, and maybe his too. I'd had so many men tell me, friends and dates, that they'd felt used by women, that I wanted to move far away from that if I could.

So, all that to say that I think people go the sugar route for many reasons, and I don't think any of them go down that path expecting to meet a long term partner. The goals and intentions are misaligned I think.