Making it Easy for "Sugar Daddies" to Connect With "Sugar Babies"(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Making it Easy for "Sugar Daddies" to Connect With "Sugar Babies"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12sugardaddies-t.html
8 comments
It's the sex separation thing: men and women do stuff differently. Evolutionary speaking it's a very interesting and complicated game. I recommend "Why is sex fun?" by Jared Diamond for a crash course.
Any short answer I'd give would be wrong in some way, so I'll just say once again: sexes are different. Don't make the mistake to think this is less important in modern times. It's not. It's just a bit more complicated.
Any short answer I'd give would be wrong in some way, so I'll just say once again: sexes are different. Don't make the mistake to think this is less important in modern times. It's not. It's just a bit more complicated.
I find it somewhat pathetic that these are men looking for a prostitution service, then going to great lengths to psychologically justify to themselves that this is something other than prostitution.
They're looking for the convenience of a prostitute, without the hassle (logistical, legal) and the "worry" that might come with a normal prostitute (guilt, higher disease risk, whatever).
I'm happily married, but I don't think calling these people "pathetic" is appropriate. Everyone's sexuality is different, and their own. Judging someone else like that doesn't seem right.
I'm happily married, but I don't think calling these people "pathetic" is appropriate. Everyone's sexuality is different, and their own. Judging someone else like that doesn't seem right.
It's very simple: transactional sex is less pleasurable than a sexual relationship. It seems only natural that a market for a higher-end service than simple prostitution exists.
These men could pay for sex, but they are willing to pay extra for the feeling that they are not paying for sex.
These men could pay for sex, but they are willing to pay extra for the feeling that they are not paying for sex.
If you were in the hospital for an extended period, you could pay someone to sit and talk with you. But you couldn't pay them to do it spontaneously because they cared.
You can pay someone for sex now. You can't pay someone to think about you all day and be consumed with anticipation just before you meet.
You can pay someone to go out with you to a social occasion. You can't pay someone to share a knowing glance across the table when you have some shared observation of the behavior of a third party. When you know before you look that you're going to have this shared observation.
And I'm not putting sex work down; it also has its place. It's just not the same as a relationship.
You can pay someone for sex now. You can't pay someone to think about you all day and be consumed with anticipation just before you meet.
You can pay someone to go out with you to a social occasion. You can't pay someone to share a knowing glance across the table when you have some shared observation of the behavior of a third party. When you know before you look that you're going to have this shared observation.
And I'm not putting sex work down; it also has its place. It's just not the same as a relationship.
Didn't AdultFriendFinder's parent company boast of 1M+ paying members? Perhaps sites like these are only formalizing and bringing relative transparency to the way American society has been functioning for decades (or even longer)? Certainly rich men have had mistresses for quite some time. How did men find mistresses fifty years ago? Personal ads? Did women who wanted to be mistresses know at which Financial District bars they should hang out? Perhaps the more interesting question is how the "not talked about" sorts of relationships formed pre-Internet.
A well-dressed man meets a really attractive woman at a bar. He approaches her and then propositions her. "Would you be interested in having sex with me for a million dollars?"
The woman thinks for a while. And then says, "For a million dollars? Yes."
Then the man says, "Well, actually, I don't have a million bucks. How about I pay you $50."
The woman then becomes indignant and says, "What? $50? What kind of woman do you think I am?"
The man retorts smartly, "We already established what kind of woman you are. Now we're just negotiating the price."
The woman thinks for a while. And then says, "For a million dollars? Yes."
Then the man says, "Well, actually, I don't have a million bucks. How about I pay you $50."
The woman then becomes indignant and says, "What? $50? What kind of woman do you think I am?"
The man retorts smartly, "We already established what kind of woman you are. Now we're just negotiating the price."
The article is quite interesting - but what if someone had told you 10 years ago that the New York Times would publish an article using the term "sugar relationships"?
I'd conclude that they're keeping up with the times
Too bad they're only keeping up with the times when it comes to their lingo, and not with their business model
Times is trying to reinvent itself a lot more aggressively than other newspapers
They even launched two APIs recently. If there's a newspaper out there trying to reinvent itself, that newspaper is the NYTimes.
Actually that newspaper is the Seattle P-I, but okay.
http://developer.nytimes.com
Actually there are more than two APIs...
Actually there are more than two APIs...
Are you suggesting that there's an obvious solution that the NYT is neglecting which would solve the problems that they - and every other newspaper - are facing? I'd love to hear it. I'm sure they would too.
Go to an online-only distribution model and charge a premium if you want it in dead-tree format.
If their journalistic skills are so much better than those of the bloggers, then demonstrate that to us.
If their journalistic skills are so much better than those of the bloggers, then demonstrate that to us.
I find this business model much more agreeable than the adultery-only sites, which seems to me to only be enabling dishonesty. Here, presumably, everything is on the table. It doesn't involve purposely lying to your spouse as much as it does making arrangements for, er, extra "services"
Not that I would go for anything like this. I've found from watching myself and others that the line between sex and emotional relationship is too blurry for to dance around for a long time.
I really wonder who is screwing whom here. Can you have a one-night stand and walk away? Sure. Can you spend tens of thousands of dollars on someone and then walk away? Sure -- it's only money. How about your time? How much of your personal time do you want to spend wooing and chatting up and getting to know somebody who's there only as a sort of human rental car?
It's the time investment that doesn't make much sense. If you're paying for sex seems like you drop your cash and badda boom, badda bing the transaction is done. If you're looking for a relationship, you spend your money and time and build a knowledge of somebody. But this is almost like saying "I'm too insecure to meet people, so I'd just like to pay you and pretend we like each other for a period of time. Then we'll both move on"
I'm not buying it. I think these guys have emotional needs they're covering up by rationalizing dating into a business deal. Since their emotional problems aren't going away, and since there will always be young, attractive girls who want more money, it looks like a solid business model. I'm just glad I'm not a customer.
Not that I would go for anything like this. I've found from watching myself and others that the line between sex and emotional relationship is too blurry for to dance around for a long time.
I really wonder who is screwing whom here. Can you have a one-night stand and walk away? Sure. Can you spend tens of thousands of dollars on someone and then walk away? Sure -- it's only money. How about your time? How much of your personal time do you want to spend wooing and chatting up and getting to know somebody who's there only as a sort of human rental car?
It's the time investment that doesn't make much sense. If you're paying for sex seems like you drop your cash and badda boom, badda bing the transaction is done. If you're looking for a relationship, you spend your money and time and build a knowledge of somebody. But this is almost like saying "I'm too insecure to meet people, so I'd just like to pay you and pretend we like each other for a period of time. Then we'll both move on"
I'm not buying it. I think these guys have emotional needs they're covering up by rationalizing dating into a business deal. Since their emotional problems aren't going away, and since there will always be young, attractive girls who want more money, it looks like a solid business model. I'm just glad I'm not a customer.
"He has an almost mathematical approach to assessing relationships, and once even computed the costs for a girlfriend, mistress, prostitute and wife — mistresses turn out to be most expensive by the hour; wives, by the year; girlfriends are cheapest all around. But he’s not as calculating as he seems. In fact, he concluded there’s little correlation between cost and quality. Still, he is relentlessly searching for an algorithm that will predict relationships’ success."
LOL. This guy's a hacker!
LOL. This guy's a hacker!
[deleted](1)
Also emotionally challenged.
Making decisions in a rational manner is usually well regarded in business. Why not apply the same principles to one's sex life? It sounds sociopathic, I know, but it's a serious and honest question. Why is it cool to be a good homo economicus in one's professional life, but NOT in one's personal life?
Friendship is supposed to be non-transactional. That is, a true friend is someone who values the relationship itself over what s/he gets out of it. If you want a rational explanation for this, think about how, in an alliance, you need to be able to trust the other person not to backstab you if you are temporarily weak.
Most people pay a lot of attention to figuring out whether the other person values the relationship over what they're getting out of it. (Citation: all gossip, every Shakespeare play, all of literature generally).
Most people pay a lot of attention to figuring out whether the other person values the relationship over what they're getting out of it. (Citation: all gossip, every Shakespeare play, all of literature generally).
Because it cheapens you and lowers your self-worth. You are sub-communicating to yourself that you are not attractive and nobody would want to spend their time with you unless you're forking off cold hard cash.
To someone with high self-esteem and some regard for the non-utilitarian value of human relationships, that escort/prostitute money can spent on a new cologne and a funny hat and much fun could be had for a whole night at the pub shaking hands and introducing yourself as an eligible bachelor .. with a big broad smile :-)
Someone will find you quirky enough to come chat with you, and you go from there.
To someone with high self-esteem and some regard for the non-utilitarian value of human relationships, that escort/prostitute money can spent on a new cologne and a funny hat and much fun could be had for a whole night at the pub shaking hands and introducing yourself as an eligible bachelor .. with a big broad smile :-)
Someone will find you quirky enough to come chat with you, and you go from there.
"non-utilitarian value" - to some people's mind, all value is treated as having utility. the rest of this mentality stems from there. You're reading minds according to your values, and not those of your subjects.
[deleted]
Interesting article. I think prostitution should be legalized. But this website seems like it could fall afoul of the law since it is essentially taking a commission on illegal sexual transactions - not so different from what an escort service does. Obviously police frequently look the other way when escort services with white-collar clients are involved and that's probably what will happen here too. But an overly zealous public official could cause a lot of trouble for a site like this, I would think. Especially after it receives high profile coverage in The NYT. Of course I'm not a lawyer so take that with a grain of salt.
From page three: Indeed, 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.)
you bring up an interesting point.
also, what happens when one of these girls ends up seriously hurt or even dead? who now owns the responsibility. i just can't imagine this lasting very long, especially as it becomes more and more popular.
also, what happens when one of these girls ends up seriously hurt or even dead? who now owns the responsibility. i just can't imagine this lasting very long, especially as it becomes more and more popular.
What do you mean who owns the responsibility? The person who hurt or killed her, of course. I don't see the gray area. How is, what is in essence, a niche dating site responsible for what its members do any more so than the mainstream ones?
the person who spilled the hot coffee bought from mcdonalds was responsible for it, but somehow mcdonalds got stuck with paying for the lawsuit and the alleged damages.
to a certain degree, the lawyers will push that it's the sites responsibility to check who is on the site.
i'm not saying it will happen, but it's just something to think about.
to a certain degree, the lawyers will push that it's the sites responsibility to check who is on the site.
i'm not saying it will happen, but it's just something to think about.
"what happens when one of these girls ends up seriously hurt or even dead?"
A replacement of equal or higher quality is obtained from the toy-mill and the customer given a discount coupon for his next service.
[please HN, don't be another internet male chauvinist creep den]
A replacement of equal or higher quality is obtained from the toy-mill and the customer given a discount coupon for his next service.
[please HN, don't be another internet male chauvinist creep den]
The thing that I can't stop thinking about is: Where is the line between prostitution and a relationship? I'm not talking about the legal sense; I don't find that interesting at all. I'm talking about the moral sense.
For example, if I paid a woman for sex right now, I would feel bad about it. This would be the case even if she was not whorish at all, even if it was the first time she ever had sex for money. I would feel that it's fake and that she doesn't really "accept" me.
On the other hand, I'd be completely okay with supporting a wife financially for the rest of our lives.
It makes sense that the man gives money to a woman who mates with him. But I think that the uneasy feeling that you'd get if you'll pay directly for sex is a real problem. I think it's more than just an uneasy feeling that can be ignored--I think it signifies that something is wrong, but I can't put it into words exactly. Maybe one of you can?
I think that "Sam", the sugar daddy who is mentioned in page 5 of this article, boiled it down to a pretty good formula:
Sam is also more determined than most to try separating a sugar baby’s affection and the money she’s paid to provide it. In his arrangements, he says, he establishes a trust in the woman’s name that pays a monthly stipend of at least $5,000 for the length of their contract. If the woman decides to quit sleeping with him at any point, he may quit serving as adviser and pamperer, but the stipend continues regardless. “If I didn’t do that, then it’s like a leash I’m putting on somebody, and that seems really unfair,” he said. “Besides, then I’d never know what the relationship was really about.”
Any thoughts?