Objectively is there anything wrong or immoral about an adult woman entering into a relationship with a non-married adult man where she is paid a monthly stipend and (in addition) regular shopping sprees, fine dinners, etc. for being (effectively) a professional girlfriend to a well off man? In the context of her girlfriend duties she attends to his sexual and emotional needs and is available for him to take around on his schedule. This arrangement may involve her living in his residence or in a separate place of her own paid for by the man.
This kind of relationship is detailed in this article. He’s getting arm candy and sex and a conversational companion and she’s getting cash, access to a fairly high standard of living, and (assumedly) a fairly steady stream of gifts or shopping opportunities on his dime. There is no written contract and it’s an at will relationship.
I find it somewhat distasteful and fundamentally a prostitute-client relationship with a thin veneer of respectability pasted over it, but if both parties are going into the relationship with no illusions I have no real objections to it happening. That said, I do think it’s the sort of relationship which can easily lead to a variety of forms of abuse in either direction, and it’s definitely not healthy in the long-term.
Works for me. Long-term stability would be an issue, as well as possible complications if one party developed an attraction that the other didn’t share.
The one you send home after an hour is a hooker, the one you take to dinner is a call girl, the one you rent an apartment for is a sugar baby. They’re all prostitutes.
It happens more often than we like to think, we just aren’t normally up front about it. I guess it’s up to the individual to decide whether it’s better to honestly admit that you’re trading sex/relationship for financial support, or whether you pretend that it’s just a case of Prince Charming meeting and supporting Cinderella, in love happily ever after, for the next couple of months anyway.
Answering for myself, I don’t think of it as wrong, just icky in light of how I view relationships. In my own relationships, I’ve never brought anything to the table beyond my own attractiveness and personality, and never sought out a partner based on anything other than those same qualities.
To picture myself in a relationship where my looks and charm were being exchanged for the money and favors of someone I didn’t find attractive sounds awful, as does the idea of a woman who found me unattractive hanging around pretending otherwise in exchange for my money.
In both cases, I find it far ickier than an isolated act (or many isolated acts) of prostitution. I fully recognize this is my own filters and biases speaking.
These days, the only part that really offends me is the way the sugar baby becomes an accessory for the sugar daddy, like just another fancy watch or high-end car. I just don’t like the idea of human beings as decoration. It’s not the kind of relationship I’d want to be in (on either side).
However, I hire people to do stuff for me all the time without any concern for getting to know them as a person. I did not discuss literature or politics with the guy who came to fix the boiler a few months ago. I didn’t abuse him, but our conversation didn’t go much beyond “Need anything from me?” “Just a check for $250, and leave the side door open so I can get my tools in.” “OK.”
So I suppose my answer is, I don’t think there’s any reason to prohibit or punish such an arrangement, but I would not be pleased to know that a friend or family member was involved in one.
It’s not taxable to share household expenses, but it is taxable to provide a service for a fee. There is a reportable limit for gifts (from the giver) but they’re not taxable to the recipient. But, again, it’s not a gift if you’re providing a service for a fee.
It seems both parties are getting their needs met, so I have no issue with it. I do hope Baby side of the relationship uses the extra money to put herself through college. I can’t imagine anything sadder than a former Baby having nothing to trade at 40+.
I read that most treat it like a gift. Officially, the sugar baby doesn’t have to “do” anything - she just has to be physically present a reasonable amount of time and she gets her “gift”. There’s no guarantee of anything else, no contract. What “drives” the relationship is she knows damn well that if she doesn’t do something to make the Sugar Daddy want her to come back, she won’t be invited back. Obviously, the “something” that is most likely to be effective is unprotected sex, but it doesn’t always happen and in some sugar relationships, no sex at all occurs.
I think I read that a “sugar baby” can collect up to 14k from any given sugar daddy in a year via this gift exclusion. It would be interesting to see if the typical sugar relationship is limited this way - does the relationship end after 14k has been paid? Does the sugar baby just keep showing up, collecting her gift, and just not bother to report the extra? (a lot of the gifts are cash). There’s no mandatory paper trail on the part of the daddy I don’t think…