What's the difference between this and a sugar baby site like seeking arrangements?
Also, think about what type of men can have sugar babies vs. what type of men engage in regular prostitution and there's a class based argument that emerges.
The answer to that is no, which is why I draw the distinction.
Not that there aren't men who sign up to a sugar baby site, date much younger very attractive girls, pay them, and don't have sex with them. I'm sure that exists too, but only because the client really doesn't want that service.
1) Girl immediately exchanges sex for goods/cash (rarest)
2) Girl makes a sexual exchange after a courting period (most common)
3) Guy isn't interested in sex but a female companion for emotional support
4) Girl is pretending like she does #2 but actually drops off after courting period
5) Girl is actually doing #2 but the guy is too creepy
There is an element of consent involved because of the delay and indirect aspect of monetary exchange. Many sugar babies will question what differs them from traditional girlfriends other than that they are clear about how the relationship progresses.
Prostitutes can consent. They aren't /obligated/ to have sex with you just because you have $400 in hand. If they are, they're being coerced/trafficked and that is very clearly morally not OK.
Questioning the difference is another justification for the "I'm not really a prostitute" self-deception. Anyone that can't tell the difference between a sugar and normal relationship either has never /had/ a real relationship or is deeply materialistic to their core.
I think not being able to expect a return of your payment is because of the illegality of the exchange, not because the exchange is for something different altogether.
People can expect anything in any circumstances, but even with traditional prostitution (except, of course, where it is legal and therefore legal contract enforcement is available) you don't get your money back if the seller fails to provide sex. So you can't really use that to draw the line, since a "no" answer would make sugar babies exactly like (illegal) prostitutes.
But when you get a 65 year old rich dude "dating" a 22 year old bartender, that met on a sugar baby site, it's pretty clear the girl isn't with him for his rock-hard abs and winning personality.
Not making a moral judgment here, I feel consensual paid sex should be legal. But call a rose a rose.
Again, I completely understand that the distinction is EVERYTHING for these girls, because they truly don't think of themselves as prostitutes. But that's simply their self-deception.
The legal circumstances surrounding these exchanges, as well as the women that get involved in these are wildly different. Calling a rose a rose is fine, but that doesn't justify disregarding nuances between subspecies.
Then we may as well call every women who's ever slept after being paid a drink a prostitute. Not that I mind but they probably do ^^
The interesting challenge I have for people is distinguish between a sugar baby and a normal relationship. Academic surveys/studies show that ambition and wealth matter. Most women will not overtly say that they are specifically looking for money, but very few women would settle down with someone they are generally compatible with but who is constantly impoverished and reckless with their finances.
I met a girl who had dated several guys from SA. She said in each case, it was one or two "normal" dates before the guy offered her $500-$1K for sex.
It's funny to me that "sugar babies" are treated as innocuous. In reality it is probably a lot more insidious than "real" prostitution because it serves as a gateway for girls to get into the game while lying to themselves.