In Kenya, “sugar” relationships have become both more common and more visible
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
But that doesn't mean people don't expect a benefit, it's just that the people we admire expect it without crudely calculating it.
I'd say in a lot of ways, a person entering into a relationship expects benefit and expects to form an "us", a commonality, a partnership, with their other, so that what benefits is "us", the common group, and not simply the individual as a completely separated entity unconcerned with the other.
If anyone wants a great starting point to help out I would recommend the talks by: https://youtu.be/lMBqFFnSS5U?list=PLe7tfp6fIaMwdMTW2O3-kkBiJ...
For Veting individual you can simply use `Transactional analysis` to quickly filter from people who're high value vs high drama.
They are very useful becaus they can be solid foundation of any derivation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction
BTW, not trying to debate necessarily as I don't have a strong feeling on either side. I just found this article and your comment to be interesting.
Cost, time, stress, etc. At the benefit of seeing a part of you live on and be happy.
In relationships like the ones described in this article, both parties are paying more attention to whether they're getting what they perceive to be a fair reward for what they are providing to the other, and should the balance ever shift too far out of their favor, they will presumably end the relationship.
On the other extreme, in a relationship between two very close childhood friends or between two deeply romantically involved people, one will often do nice things for the other without (I claim) necessarily checking the books to see all the nice things they've done vs. all the nice things the other's done in the past week before deciding whether to do the nice thing. They just do the nice thing, knowing that in the past the other has done the same for them. Only if there comes to be a very long period of non-reciprocation will the other party wake to the one-sidedness of the relationship and begin to reconsider.
This pretty much describes all relationships except those where one falls horribly ill or the ones where one sticks around despite abuse.
> They just do the nice thing, knowing that in the past the other has done the same for them. Only if there comes to be a very long period of non-reciprocation will the other party wake to the one-sidedness of the relationship and begin to reconsider.
I think this might be the case in many sugar relationships. That's why it's sometimes hard to describe them as just sex work.
In an equal relationship, both contribute economic resources, emotional support, domestic work, sexual pleasure, etc. Traditionally, in the West, there was an asymmetry in that the woman provided the domestic work, the man the outside work with the concomitant salary; but the asymmetry has shrunk over the decades, due also to the increased opportunities of women in the work force.
In these sugar relationships, there is massive asymmetry in the nature of the contributions; it's an intermediary between prostitution (pure money vs sex, short term) and marriage (lots and lots of stuff vs lots and lots of stuff, long term), but arguably closer to the former.
Sex work is a tough topic for sorting out human rights under the best of circumstances. It sounds like it is even more fraught in the crucible that is Africa.
I don't know what the answer is. I also don't like the idea of people on the outside imputing their mores unto another group when that group could advocate for themselves.
And that is for having children; I'm sure in the "casual dating"/monopolising the most fertile/attractive years of women the top males have it much better.
[1] https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
Several young women maintain several distinct social media identities: one for family, one for friends, one for "daddies".
Most often, when they suspect you have more than one, they'll close the multiples after requiring you to verify your identity on one (or more) of them.
Source: I only have one, but I run in occult circles. Many folks keep their occult stuff seperate from their main friends, family, and work account, with some overlap. Sometimes folks will go through and turn them in, and most folks turn around and make yet another new one.
key word there. I hope FB doesn't crack down on it, people are (IMO) entitled to multiple online identities and false identities. I'd like to keep work and private separate; I have a friend who uses a false name to try and avoid her stalker, etc.
If the parts about lifelong commitment and no sex before marriage fails, but other gender conditioning remains, the various sugar daddies etc are logical/natural consequence.
Isn’t poverty what drives most of us to get any job? I work because otherwise i’d be in poverty.
Are they implying that sex work is the only work available to them? Unlikely. But I imagine sex work is far more profitable and easier of a job than the alternatives - so maybe that actually makes it a good thing?
Really? Both Dowry and Bride Price were not uncommon practices.
Or more like, the world has always been like that in some form or another. Sugar Daddy is nothing new, we just happen to have Internet to spread this information far wider.
Aha! The very definition of taking one for the team :-) .
The news is that now it's wide open and more expected. They'll keep it doing well into their 40's, once you cross the barrier you can always use more money. And odds are that they'll find a taker, albeit an older one and receive way less money.
In discussions with young women of modest means in countries with limited opportunities and huge income inequality (ie most third world countries), it is hard to find arguments against their impression that this lifestyle is their best chance for a good life.
Is the youth the biggest draw? From my experience highest quality sex happens with more experienced ladies, it takes them time to come to terms with their body, their visual flaws (all of us has them) etc. and just enjoy themselves.
What about trust? With prostitute, you know you can't trust her being healthy, with these ladies - is the approach the same or you hope she doesn't have 10 similar 'customers' like you?
Youth is definitely a top draw. You might have seen this study: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/style/dating-apps-online-... - men of all ages send most messages to 18-19 year-olds. But there are other factors: not my experience but some men have fetishes they want to fulfill or they want to cheat. I'm actually doing well enough on Tinder to meet a new, above average girl every day in a big city. But I'm not in the social circles that would allow me to meet top current models or ballet dancers... But this makes it possible.
It's just my impression that could be wrong but I'm 90%+ sure that none of the girls I was seeing had other "clients." I'm picky and I avoid girls who seem like "party girls" and have no job or don't go to school. Also, only one of them had a previous arrangement and all of them wanted to have chemistry first. They describe most of the other men they met as weird and unattractive.
So I agree with you that you can't trust 80%+ of them if you care about not being just another client.
@person_of_color Edit because I hit the posting limits: I've done it with breaks for real relationships in mid-to-late 30s.
How much do you spend monthly on your sugar partner?
Do the girls ever fall in love with you? Or you with them?
How many girls do you see at a time? How long does the arrangement usually last?
How much of the remuneration is in cash vs luxury items like jewellery, handbags, phones etc?
For rich women, the ability to enter into these "sponsor relationships" is empowering, enabling them to do more. And as long as they can just end it on short notice, certainly empowering.
For poor women, who would not be able to eat without a sponsor relationship or outright prostitution, the freedom is a prison, effectively convicting them to lifelong sex work.
This would also work in reverse. Zero tolerance for prostitution is liberating for the poor, oppressive for the rich. Not just for women even, if you consider for a little bit what the effect on men is, it is even liberating for men.
For rich men, of course the ability to just buy women without needing to hide anything is liberating. Even for men who just want to have sex without condoms (often very strongly legislated against in outright sex work, and enforced by the women, for health reasons) it is liberating.
The same is true for many other issues that current society can't seem to make it's mind up over. For, example, for many young girls, the "freedom to wear the islamic face veil" is not freedom at all, because their parents have a very strong preference (and feel justified in using violence to get this particular issue settled). And of course that leads to further oppression.
But for women who are already in a position of sufficient power to just do what they want, whatever comes into their mind, a prohibition on face veils would be limiting.
However, in both examples it is only liberty at the expense of others that is achieved. Usually liberty for the powerful, and usually men at that, at the expense of poorer people, mostly women.
But we should allow this ... because Beyonce used it to achieve great status. And that it failed 99.99% of those who tried it ? Oh well ...
And there is the small issue that there are many more women for whom outlawing prostitution is liberating, where even just outlawing or socially punishing sponsorship relationships would at least provide safe sex and there are many more girls for whom a prohibition on face veils would be liberating, where it would provide a way out of a bad family position, an initial concession to "family oppression/values" that their parents would be forced to make. Because there are simply much more poor ...
Should be read more a sardonic acknowledgement of how innately transactional sex can be, and how the line between 'transactional sex' and 'not transactional sex' can be very, very blurry.
Especially in horrific pre-historical survival scenarios. Hence the saying.
> Especially in horrific pre-historical survival scenarios. Hence the saying.
Prostitution and rape are not the same, really. Prostitution or sex for survival happened much more lately (Victorian era, any time with lack of resources, any time with lack of men, wars, world wars).
I don't really understand your comment. 'Transactional sex' can be both a new concept, and a thing that happened before the phrase was coined.
(Warning: Contains adult themes and graphic images)
That isn't enough for you?