Legality is the only difference between sugar daddy parties and prostitution, Thomas Creedy writes.
Occasionally one’s blood boils. And the Internet makes one angry. And it tends to be about the idiocy of mankind. Sometimes, its just frustrating to be the sort of gullible person who clicks on news links.
In America, a Sugar Daddy is a piece of candy. But it’s also something much worse. It is a catch-all phrase for a “dating phenomenon” that is, frankly, plain wrong. Because the other meaning of “sugar daddy” is that of a wealthy older man who dates younger women, and sustains this relationship, often sexually-based, by showering them with gifts. Or cash.
It’s not exactly prostitution, but it kind of is.
I read about it in a BBC article that was directed to me by Hannah, a twitter contact who also contributes to my blog (disclaimer: I don’t endorse everything she writes, but she is a fantastic conversation starter!).
So there are these “organizations” coming to the UK, with parties being organized in London, where wealthy men can meet young women who want a little more than most can give them. While adults are obviously free to do what they like within the extent of the law, perhaps this is a little over the top. To say the least.
The BBC article included the following frustrating segment:
Alan Schneider, who’s a sugar daddy himself, believes the economic crisis in the US is one of the reasons parties like this are becoming more popular.
“Traditional relationships of men being the provider and women being the caretaker of the family are coming back now,” he says. “They’re coming back because of the economy.”
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad freeHe denies there is anything sexist about that.
“I don’t think we’re taking a step backward with these parties,” he insists. “We’re taking a step forward.
“A lot of these women here tonight may be very wealthy but they want to feel like ladies and to be with a man who can provide for them.”
Like I said, it’s not exactly prostitution, but it kind of is.
The notion that women need to be bought things in order to feel like women is very, very sad. And very, very wrong. There are a number of reasons why. The notion that these operate as traditional relationships is hypocrisy. Even the article seems to recognize that this is not what they’re about. It’s adults taking advantage of each other—using their “gifts,” whether their currency be feminine wiles or business acumen and large salaries—to get what they want. It is a backward step. It is, bluntly, prostitution in principle.
And it is not cool.
By supporting such an event, people are seeking satisfaction. Seeking fulfilment. Pleasure. Wealth. Glamour. Whatever. It’s piling things into a pit that can never be filled by another human being.
That’s the reality of it.
Originally appeared at admiralcreedy.blogspot.com.
—Photo orijinal/Flickr
There is a technical term for people who work for no reward: slaves.
Cant men give women money without waiting for sexual gratification? A good man helps out without expecting rewards. If you have to pay for sex you might have a problem. Plus its risky STDs, STIs. GoodMen dont exchange money for sex its a character flaw.
Peter, it’s not being a prostitute which transmits STDs: it’s unsafe sex. And “normal” women practice far more unsafe sex than prostitutes.
It’s dismaying that any time prostitution is brought up, someone feels bound to trot out the “Typhoid Mary” myth.
Besides, Peter, you’re suggesting that dating relationships and marriage DON’T involve trading money for sex. Whose definition of “good men” are you using–some feminist’s?
Picking your date up in your car, buying her dinner and a movie is essentially paying for sex except it isn’t a sure thing. It is part of the pavane of good man = good provider = might get sex. The same is true of paying a prostitute for sex, save there is truth in advertising. I do question your premise “good man helps out without expecting a reward”; why is that exactly? I don’t dispute the helping your neighbours in times of natural disasters, house fires and the like but why would a good man perform unrewarded labour for… Read more »
Obviously my above statement of working to help the confidence of women and men in this situation doesn’t apply to regular prostitution, there are completely different reasons for that.
The article isn’t a bad one, but it falls into the usual feminist/sexist trap on the subject of denying women’s agency and failing to recognise the objectification of men. By focusing on the objectification of these women in terms of their bodies, its ignoring the objectification of the men in question in terms of their wallets. I don’t think these exchanges should be banned, that won’t stop them from happening of address the causes that give rise to them. Instead we should work to help the confidence of individuals who feel a need to be valued only in terms of… Read more »
If you follow the prostitution comparison far enough, any relationship between consenting adults can be equated with the oldest profession. That doesn’t make the comparison accurately reflect the motivations behind the actions, which is what is often the only separation between malice and good intentions.
Furthermore, I do not think we should arm candy, at all. What kind of principles give an AK47 to a lollipop? (Sorry. Couldn`t resist.)
But a lollipop that is shaped like an AK47, now that would be f’king cool. Especially if it were made of organic honey and dried organic berries and special herbs and such. THAT would be some armed candy that I could get behind.
Legality is the only difference? I agree. We should definitely legalize prostitution.
How and why people choose their romantic partners is none of anybody else’s business, as long as it’s voluntary and between consenting adults. What you personally think of their reasons is, of course, unimportant.
I think to legalize prostitution is very dangerous it hasn’t helped in Holland.
Prostitution is a very dangerous trade were women are falsed into drug addiction ,raped beaten shot in the legs whatever mean to make them submit. , This is human injustice, Mans hate towards women .”why” surely we should do all in our power to stop this evil .You would be put in jail if you treated a dog like this.
So where do men place women.??????
What do you mean “it hasn’t helped in Holland”? Hasn`t helped WHAT, exactly? Hasn`t helped get rid of prostitutes? Hasn`t made prostitution 100% safe? Both of those points are specious./ MARRIAGE is far and away from 100% safe, but we don`t talk about banning it. And I`m sure I don`t have toexplain why making prostitution illegal will not get rid of prostitution. All your points about women being abused in prostitution are correct. Women are also, notoriously, abused in marriage and there is no reputable evidence that indicates that violence occurs more often in the one form of male/female interaction… Read more »
Since we appear to be discussing prostitution for men we should consider how it protects men. It is a source of sex without the burden of long-term financial support. It is a money-for-service, that is the man pays he gets sex. Whereas marriage/relationship is the man pays and maybe gets sex. With proper precautions disease is only marginally more risky than sex in a relationship and there is no expectation of children or child support.
“Whereas marriage/relationship is the man pays and maybe gets sex” is the the only view of marriage? What about both parties working (paying) and joining together for a variety of reasons, including companionship and friendship. And yes, sex.
I am making a comparison between marriage and prostitution as it relates to sex, in the vein of the sugar-daddies/prostitution link suggested in the article. There may well be some additional benefits to marriage but, especially for men, there are also more risks. The question for each man is, are the risks worth the possible reward of the extra benefits in marriage? If the man’s answer to himself is “no” then prostitution looks like a better deal when considering the question of the availability of sex. I think your comment opens up a wider topic on what exactly is marriage… Read more »
Excellent point, Trans. Marriage should never be treated as a ‘default’ thing that all people are EXPECTED to do and enter into automatically.
It’s a life decision with pluses and minuses to be weighed; for a lot of people, it’s simply not a cost-effective choice. The downsides outweigh the positives.
Prostitution is a very dangerous trade BECAUSE it’s illegal, Jackie. Prostitutes have nowhere to turn if they’re being endangered or abused, because their work is illegal.
If it were legalized and regulated… if prostitutes could get health screenings and drug rehab…. if they could turn to the police without fear in cases of abuse… how would that make their lives worse, exactly?
Coming from conversations I’ve had with several prostitutes and pro-dommes, legalising protitution does in fact make it much safer for prostitutes. Ciminalising it completely fails to address the issues which cause it in the first place.
The existance of prostitution isn’t by any means evidence of a general hatred of men towards women. Your comment, on the other hand, reeks of a woman’s hatred towards men.
I’m disappointed by this article’s preoccupation with the similarity between sugar daddies and prostitution. Ok, fine, I get it – but isn’t the more problematic effect of the sugar-daddy-“taking-care-of”-young-woman relationship the fact that it perpetuates sexism and the acceptance of traditional gender roles, especially for future generations?
Thanks for the comment – this paragraph is alluding to that: “The notion that women need to be bought things in order to feel like women is very, very sad. And very, very wrong. There are a number of reasons why. The notion that these operate as traditional relationships is hypocrisy. Even the article seems to recognize that this is not what they’re about. It’s adults taking advantage of each other—using their “gifts,” whether their currency be feminine wiles or business acumen and large salaries—to get what they want. It is a backward step. It is, bluntly, prostitution in principle.”… Read more »
Those women at the party in the BBC article are HIDEOUS. I don’t know a guy with a full-time job that would bang any of those chicks let alone pay for a date with them….let alone subsidize their lives!
This is an extremely offensive article. The argument is entirely moralistic. What if it was EXACTLY prostitution, would it still be wrong? Why is prostitution wrong in the first place? If everyone involved knows exactly what they are getting into, where’s the harm? Is being open and honest about what you want harmful? If the women involved genuinely want a financially-based relationship, who are we to tell them their desires are wrong? And if the men involved really want to tie their self-worth to their net-worth, again, who are we to tell them that this is wrong? Why can’t someone… Read more »
Do you believe that there is any time or place in today’s society for moral arguments or is it just passe? Just wondering in a general way.
Moral arguments, yes. Falsely mopral arguments, no. If the argument is that prostitution`s evil because…. 1) It is exchange of money for sex; 2) Often involves violence against women; or… 3) Can damage one’s relationships with others… …then it is falsely moral because marriage can likewise be all these things. If the argument is “prostitution is wrong because it is illegal”, then it is falsely moral because it is a tautology. WHY is it illegal? Of course, because it`s wrong! What I find humorous is that Creedy seems to think that “not cool” is, or should be, a synonym of… Read more »
thanks for your comment. I don’t quite understand – maybe I’m being naive – how marriage can be jumped in like prostitution? I understand that points 2 and 3 are risks/problems within many marriages, but the first somewhat stumps me. Though one could of course argue that the western tradition of engagement rings, or other traditions of dowry etc, are effectively paying for the wife. My post reflects my viewpoint that prostitution is wrong because it is at its root an inherent devaluation of the humanity of the prostitute, and of the man (or woman) procuring their services. I am… Read more »
Dear Creedy, With all due respect, I think you are being naive. Historically, far many more women have been bought and sold as wives than as prostitutes. Historically, the vast majority of human rights violations that women have suffered come at the hands of their husbands, fathers or other “legal” male protectors. If you think that “engagement rings” are the only symbols of slavery in Western marriage, then let me suggest that your understanding of western marriage doesn’t seem to go back past 1920. Women were men’s wards, Creedy. Their fathers’ until married, their husbands after that. Marriage, today, is… Read more »
Prostitution is perceived to undermine the value placed upon sex since it requires no long-term commitment of financial support. When comparing sex workers to spouses, the sex workers are either undervaluing sex or the spouses are overestimating its worth. It is not surprising the two “sides” don’t agree. In an effort to bolster a weak argument, the spouse-supporters offer up morals which are little more than pronouncements without logical backing.