

Making it Easy for "Sugar Daddies" to Connect With "Sugar Babies"  - peter123
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12sugardaddies-t.html

======
cool-RR
I found this very interesting.

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?

~~~
jimbokun
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.

~~~
modoc
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.

------
ShabbyDoo
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.

------
mhb
_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."_

------
javanix
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"?

~~~
jskopek
I'd conclude that they're keeping up with the times

~~~
colins_pride
Too bad they're only keeping up with the times when it comes to their lingo,
and not with their business model

~~~
yan
Times is trying to reinvent itself a lot more aggressively than other
newspapers

~~~
Rod
They even launched two APIs recently. If there's a newspaper out there trying
to reinvent itself, that newspaper is the NYTimes.

~~~
misuba
Actually that newspaper is the Seattle P-I, but okay.

~~~
Rod
<http://developer.nytimes.com>

Actually there are more than two APIs...

------
DanielBMarkham
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.

------
Rod
_"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!

~~~
mahmud
Also emotionally challenged.

~~~
Rod
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?

~~~
mahmud
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.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
"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.

------
gonick_daysbury
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.

~~~
sahaj
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.

~~~
yan
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?

~~~
sahaj
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.

------
catz
Interesting idea. I seem to not be able to access the site (
SeekingArrangement.com). Not that I have enough money in any case...

~~~
mhb
_Not that I have enough money in any case..._

And, presumably, also too much.

