I know women who work as escorts and girls that have been sugar babies, there's a pretty distinct difference.
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.