We have all read the headlines in one way or another: “Tory secretary exposed for selling sex on Sugar Daddy website”; “Hundreds of UK students have signed up to Sugar Daddy sites”; “Sugar Daddy or student Loan? - Ad campaign sparks outrage in Paris”. But why has society now shifted its focus to such a great extent to sugar babys or men who would choose to nurture their dating habits taking into account mutual benefits at the outset other than the more traditionally orthodox approach to it?
Throughout the years, most societies have long been avid high brown critics of relationship settings that are somehow not complacent with „rule abiding” standards and dating encounters which are believed to trivialize and/or banalize what is fundamental to the institution of marriage. Interracial, same sex, prostitution to name a few. However, the blatant flaw in the argument against the Sugardaddy dating from those who engage into traditionally orthodox relationships or more precisely, those who jump on the sugar daddy shaming bandwagon is that individuals in traditional relationships can too, to a certain degree, seek mutual benefit in their quest for long term relationships; perhaps not in such a straightforward and open manner. Having said that, it is also important to stress that the “Master/Protégé, Sugar daddy/Sugar baby or sugar boy relationship is by no means a newly conceived concept but rather one originated from centuries ago.
Amongst the list of sexual/intellectual relationship in ancient greece, the erastes/eromenos one was considered as one of the most sought after in those times. It would usually involve a older man seeking to take part in the intellectual development of a younger boy, thus tutoring him in the realm of politics, the military, social interactions and so on. In exchange, both individuals would engage into a sexual relationship from which the restraint in pursuit rather than capture upon hunting of the young boy would serve as a stimulus for excellence of character and soundness of spirit. This, combined with a balanced mind would eventually lead to other qualities such as temperance, moderation and prudence. In such way the “sugardaddy” in such relationship would position himself in society as a functional member who displayed dignity.
We clearly cannot condone such ancient habits or set a standard of living to our modern lives by looking at those times, as we have made gigantic steps in the areas of human rights, in specific women’s rights, politics and so many others, making it possible for modern individuals to have ever so empowering freedom of choice. But the paradox in modern society as far as freedom of choice is concerned, is that, seemingly, the more freedom of choice worldwide citizens have in their hands, the more impaired they are by the judgements of society. For example, it was not until 1828 that homosexuality in the UK was repealed as a crime and it remained a capital offence until 1861. However it is widely known that the coming out of gay men in industries such as sports and the corporate world to name a few, is still a reality despite the legal implications being today virtually non existent. Most single men would not admit to going into sugar daddy dating as a result from the moral judgements of society and fear of them being seeing as someone who can only feel confident on a date when money is involved. The reality of it is that the sugar daddy relationship from the daddy point of view is no more than any other sexually lushous fantasy; it involves men or, less often, women who are willing to treat the baby or boy through financial means in the short to mid term; money per say. But it seems that there is a collective confusion in the air amongst men and women, both daddies and babies, and the implications from that side of the coin which so often cause the negative press for the sugar relationship nowadays would perhaps require a more careful look into the attitudes that go in contrast with the true concept of a sugar daddy relationship. Let’s start by questioning what would make a man believe that by sitting on a first date with a sugar baby and impressing her with a display of financial prowess would give him the right of ownership to “property” over a girl? And at what point in a woman’s life she starts believing she could be paid by simply sitting pretty on a dinner table on a first date with an unknown individual? Such accounts reported by real users can be understandably frustrating for both sides and more importantly, invasive to the boundaries of mutual respect; the first mutual benefit to be considered in such a relationship. Exchange is an undeniable need in the sugar daddy relationship but the agreement upon achievable goals is a matter to be carefully crafted and not deprived of the genuine interest in giving part of one’s self in a caring aspect above all. Now; one might ask: what is the difference between prostitution and a sugar daddy/baby relationship then? Well for one, there is a variety of “high class escort services” websites widely available on the internet. So one should not dispute there is if not a clear distinction between the two concepts, at least an attempt from both parties to clearly set themselves apart from the former. The number of negative headlines on the subject are a result of those who are not a hundred per cent in line with what it should really mean for two people to be in a sugar relationship. Amongst many examples, we can cite that a Government secretary should not be bragging about knowing her bosses every move and of knowing everything about him. In the same way Women who clearly have sex for money goals should not be creating profiles on sugar daddy websites. The reality is, there are bad apples in every basket and this should not be a reason for the whole basket to be wasted. We see similar examples in all industries: the 911 operator who turns her back to an emergency call resulting in the callers death, the policeman who aggressively arrests a willing nurse for doing her job by complying with the hospital rules, the priest who does not respect the boundaries between him and the altar boy and so on. None of which renders the great majority unworthy of their genuine cause.
Some might argue that there should be no money gains in a relationship between two people if that is at all to rank anywhere close to the word genuine. But one should not forget examples of individuals who through no fault of their own find themselves in situations which are less them financially desirable and upon meeting someone who could potentially safeguard them find genuine feelings in the long term as opposed to at the outset. Single mothers who in doing so have guaranteed in the long term a loving family for their offspring. Who can with absolute certainty confirm that individuals of a certain upper economical tier of society, do not pre assess economical class as one of the criteria in choosing a partner? In other words, yes the money aspect is almost always at steak no matter whether you are a sugar daddy/baby/boy or simply an ordinary spinter. So what is the issue here? The investment in a non family cause? The short term aspect to it? Or simply being different?