When I started reading, like for the first sentence or two, I assumed LW was female (what with having a "sugar baby" friend). But the more I read, the more the anti sex work vibe set in, the more I thought LW is a guy. A judgmental kind of guy who should just let his "friend" do whatever she wants with her life, and not feel the need to control women.

I would point out one logical flaw in SLAVE’s thinking. Even if his friend had a good job, she might still be attracted to part-time sex work. Like having any part-time job, she might like making some extra income, even if she could already afford to vacation in Tahiti. Perhaps she would like to save more for an early retirement or to attend graduate school or travel first class on that trip to Tahiti.

Surely SLAVE understands the attraction to making extra income, and it’s probable that SLAVE wouldn’t object if his friend was a nanny, a tutor or a waitress. So at the core, SLAVE is ok with sex work until he knows the person putting her vagina to work.

You want the nominative singular there. Meretrix is the word you're looking for.

I think the reason people are uncomfortable with sex work vs. stuff like burger flipping is that we have strong beliefs and intuitions about what constitutes "good sex" vs. "bad sex" and that the former means giving yourself to someone else (and vice versa) out of a spirit of wanting what's best for them, i.e. out of love, vs. screwing someone to get something out of it for yourself, i.e. out of selfishness.

Of course, sex is almost always a mixture of both. It's probably impossible to separate one's own sexual drive out of the equation (did anyone ever just lie back and "think of England?"). But I think people want there to be more than just that.

I think that's why LGBT rights in the country underwent a sea change when we started making the argument that it was about love and marriage.

You can still make the argument that the sugar baby in question should be free to make those decisions for his- or herself, and I would agree. But I understand LW's discomfort.

It looked to me like he was going for the plural form of meretrix, so that'd be caveant meritrices.

More and more young women (and some men) and becoming Sugar Babies in order to go (pay for) college without burdening themselves with crippling debt. I not entirely sure if this qualifies as sex work since they essentially become mistresses. I (and they) find this as a pragmatic solution to the problem of the high cost of college. It is unlikely that they are virgins and far superior to what Anna Nicole Smith and Melania did when they married Billionaires (an octogenarian and an odious, loathsome troll [who may or may not be a billionaire] respectively. Anna Nicole got the better deal even though she never received any money from her husband's family or estate. She was married for only 13 months and reportedly never had sex with husband).

are becoming Sugar / to go to (pay for)

I personally didn't go that route because of the sleaze factor and the LW makes a lot of sense to me. In theory, it was easy money that I could get a guy to pay me $500. so he could see me naked. I felt like...how f-ing hot am I that this man will give me that much cash and he doesn't even get to touch me. Damn. I'm hot! Lol. But the reality was more like this: at first I said hell no, but he kept upping the amount till he wore me down. Then, once we were alone in his hotel room he kept pressuring me for sex and begging to touch me. I can't say I blame him (trying to get his money's worth, right?) but still, I was terrified throughout the entire encounter that he would rape or harm me. Luckily he behaved when I didn't let him touch me. Everything went fine, but I left the room knowing that what I did was stupid. I was scared straight and never was tempted to strip for money ever again. There is a moral to the story, kids: yes, your youth and beauty give you power. You can trade it for money, but it just might not be worth it after all if you wind up naked in a hotel wondering if you're going to die. It's in no way easy money because of how risky it is and the thing to realize is thst the guy that is paying you for it is older, smarter, more manipulative, and scarier than those college puppies you've been dating. Most likely the cash won't be worth it in the long run. Only my opinion and I realize that some women may find sex work empowering...in theory. It's a personal choice, but it's important to think about the possible downsides too.

There are several different types of Sugar Babies, some that I find strange since the man doesn't really get anything (physically sexual) for his money. Platonic, Cyber, Pay Pig, Findom. While generally of limited term, they can extend beyond college years for various reasons. High social status of the men (women), eventual marriage, lifestyle, friendship, less likely to be subjected to sexual harassment or date rape, career advancement, etc. Then there are sex workers like dominatrices, cam sex, phone sex.

What is "caveat emptor meretricis" supposed to mean in English?

It's been a loooooong time since I've used Latin, but it looks like meretricis is genitive. Without the strike-through, I'd guess it was "let the prostitute's buyer beware." But I wonder if he was trying to say "beware of a prostitute/prostitutes?" (Cave meretricem/meretrices?) Or is the strike-through indicating that it's replacing emptor? "Let the prostitute/s beware."

I have book on this somewhere...

Geez lady, take a get your own life pill. What your friend does in her sexual life is none of your business, unless she's in a moral impasse and asks your opinion. And boy, are you ready and willing to give it.
There are some nice attractive rich older men around. It wouldn't always be a chore, if she chooses wisely. Maybe she needs your help here, help her chose a guy who might be a bit of older man fun.
Don't be a prude. It's a game, two consenting adults are involved.

As long as you treat yourself and others with respect and dignity, sugar baby/daddy can be a great situation for people. I transitioned from stripping to being a sugar baby in my early twenties and it was a great time in my life...I did go on vacations, had some incredible meals, learned about wine, bought the car I still drive from him for 400$, and he was a good friend. His wife had died of ovarian cancer and he had survived prostate cancer. There was nothing abusive about it...

girliegams@7 What you describe is sex work, not the carefully negotiated, mutually beneficial arrangements that constitute true SB/SD relationships. Discretion is essential to the men since they have a lot lose. Young women are more likely to experience negative consequences with college age men than with sugar daddies (have seen the rape statistics for women in college) When you are talking about $20K or more a year, plus better living arrangements and other fringe benefits then your cost benefit analysis needs significant adjustment.

Dan pretty much said what I would want to say but I’ll add my two cents anyway.

There are a lot of jobs that are unpleasant in many ways. That can include burger flippers, garbage collectors, and one of the worst: people who have to go into sewers to unclog fatburgs. (Google it — or don’t.) Some of these pay a lot to attract enough people to do them. Some, like fast food jobs, pay shit.

But people choose to go take these jobs out of economic necessity and we don’t try to save them. I’ve spoken with sex workers, none of whom were coerced by anyone to enter the profession or had some pimp taking their earnings. Many chose that job over other choices because of the flexible hours, the ability to work and travel, and because they liked it! The old adage “Pick a profession you like and you’ll never work a day in your life” applies here too (though I’ll add that ALL jobs, no matter how much you love them, will have days when it feels like work — that’s why they call it “work”).

I will also add that quite a lot of johns are a lot more shy, awkward, and uncomfortable about it than the sex worker. They may be lonely and seeking something they could never get on their own because of their age, weight, or specifics of their kinks.

@9 Oooh...that's an excellent take. If you ignore the strikethrough, then it means "Let the buyer of prostitutes beware." Conversely, if you go with "Caveat meretrix" then it means "Let the prostitute beware," which I assumed was Dan's meaning here.

@10 I don't know why, but it kind of makes me sad just how much the wealthy can buy. Beautiful young women, all the available real estate, a tax cut, a government. I guess it's always been thus. It would be kind of nice for us to say that there's something off limits to these powerful guys. But, then again, that's how it's always been.

I guess this is the solution to the whole #metoo crisis. Encourage enough women to become prostitutes and the harassers won't have to harass...they can just buy whatever they want.

Gods...I just realized that I referred to these women as "whatever." I was going to change it, but you know, that's how they want us to think about them so I'll leave it be.

Wait, some women would rather fuck the guy who will take them to Tahiti? You don't say!

This is a math problem. Most people can't afford vacations to Tahiti. Most people aren't attractive enough to date really attractive people.

Sometimes those two sets of people find mutual "attraction".

And if the guy is a decent person, just not physically attractive, and the girl is a decent person just not financially successful, what's wrong with that?

Wow Corydon @14: how's your form. Another bitter man who has no idea what the #metoo movement is all about.
It's about C-O-N-S-E-N-T.
If this young woman wants to play that way (and capitalism creates these lucky guys. You want it different? Change the system.), then that is her choosing to play this way. You don't go for this type of dynamic, you're free to say no.
That's how consent works.
You carry such a mean spirited chip on your shoulder, that's what's keeping the women at bay. Not the contents of your wallet.

The girls who become sugar babies tend not to be the sorts who struggle to put food on the table. Looking good isn't cheap, being able to understand where the daddies are coming from requires a certain background that usually requires being raised around money, and the baby usually has strong enough connections that they're not at risk of starving. There are long term drawbacks to the lifestyle, mostly in terms of opportunity cost. But if someone is insistent on making a mistake, sometimes you have to accept that it's their right.

Incidentally, for the people who are hustling ass because capitalism means doing that or starving, trying to take away the prostitution option for some high-minded moral reasons doesn't mean that the person winds up with a deeply fulfilling job instead. It means that they default to the starving option. Sometimes a bad option is picked because it's the least bad in a suite of bad options.

Speaking of butchered languages, since when are "sexwork" and "sexworker" single words? (They're underlined in red as I type so I suspect the answer is "since never." SEX! WORK! DAN! Jeez.)

Original @1: The letter read to like it was written by a woman. I doubt many men would say "I'm just weary from inequality. Fucking exhausted," as just one example.

On one level, isn't "I want to be a sugar baby" just "I want to find a rich man to marry," which was the norm until a few generations ago, and, as some MRAs might argue, still is? Of course, women in this century have the option of earning their own money. But as the Weinsteins of the world show us, there are still a lot of rich old dudes who'd rather bang cute young women than find their equals. Might not be what you or I'd want, but if these types gravitate towards each other, mazel tov to them. Keeps them out of my dating pool!

And SLAVE, try the gender reversal thought exercise. If your friend was a bit older than you and wanted to find a young toyboy, would you despair for the "commodification" of the toyboy or would you say YGG? The friend does not seem to be driven to this decision through poverty, through having no other option. Who knows, maybe she'll find a rich old dude she actually likes. (I'd put SLAVE in touch with my mother if she wants to raise a daughter who never wants to be financially dependent on a man; her shtick sure worked on me!)

Corydon @3: People "lie back and think of England" frequently. It's called "maintenance sex" when it's willing, "coerced sex" or "marital rape" when it is not. There's a gray area when you don't want to, but saying yes is easier than saying no. Have you read the story, Cat Person, that's doing the rounds?

Skeptic @5: How is sex work not sex work if the money is to pay for college?

Girliegams @7: The other moral of your story which I hope you learned was: "If something seems too good to be true, it probably is."

Corydon @14: But there already are plenty of sex workers, and still, men harass. It's almost as if it's not about sex, or not just about sex, but about power. What sort of victory is it if you can buy sex from someone who's willing to have sex for money? No, these predators get their jollies from knowing they've been able to get away with something their victim hasn't, and wouldn't, consent to. So no, "just get them to pay you" wouldn't be a solution. NO ONE wants to be thought of as a "whatever." Wow.

Lava @16 and Chi @17: Right on.

Cordon #14, so you are going with the old "men have to rape/coerce because they can't get laid" routine. Do you suppose all the rich Hollywood, NYC & DC sexual assault perps have no access to prostitutes now???

Sex is a route to intimacy. To commodify it cheapens it, and thus cheapens intimacy. On the other hand, creating beautiful meals for a loved one is a route to intimacy, and we admire chefs.

I don't know what to believe. I believe I'll have another drink.

Ms Fan - "Removes them from my dating pool" is good; that sounds like almost a variant on the Jimmy Beck Theorem (that two gays getting together means two women going spare).

Although Mr Savage was fairly hard on LW, one thing I'd suggest in her favour is that she seems rather unlikely to say YGG for the worst reason. I almost said "wrong" reason, but YGG implies that the reason isn't a good one. (One recalls the thread about the letter from the young woman at university who attributed to her Gender Studies class her realization that her sexual tastes were for using and abusing men with a strong preference that they not be deriving any private enjoyment from the experience; I distinctly recall applying YGG to the wave of uncritical support she received - the operative word, as Charles Nelson Reilly would say, being "uncritical".)

SLAVE has it wrong. The women are voluntarily offering services. They would only be treated as a commodity if they were forced or coerced (by someone else, not economic circumstances) At least sex workers are honest in that they are prostituting themselves (not a pejorative term with respect to sex workers) unlike politicians et al who sell themselves, their votes, access to themselves to campaign contributors. Sex workers fuck people, politicians fuck people over.

The whole world is exhausted from inequality, so with you there sista.
Imposing your morals on your friend is going to help how? Her freedom to choose such a proposition is because of gains in equality. Equally capable of making any number of good, healthy, shitty, stupid decisions as the men are.

I'm sure there are young men out there enjoying the financial spoils of older women.

BDF@19 I'm not sure if this is sex work because it may or may not involve sex. Or not just sex work. If all these men wanted was just sex, they would hire or be provided with a call girl. (A perk offered to whales by Vegas casinos as well as by others to curry favor, close a business deal, etc.)

LW, I think you have a very distorted and incomplete understanding of this dynamic. It's not a straight sex for gift scenario, whole people are involved and they both like to structure a relationship this way. Suits both of them. Intimacy would go beyond sex, and people are free to leave at any time.

And get your friend to check their sexual health, like very recent blood tests.

BDF@18 Harvey Weinstein et al aren't and never were Sugar Daddies they are rapists and sexual predators. William Randolph Hearst was a Sugar Davies and Marion Davies was his Sugar Baby who became his very long term mistress. The only reason he didn't marry her was because his wife wouldn't give him a divorce (back then only his wife had the grounds for filing for a divorce and she wouldn't). Howard Hughes (when he was producing films in Hollywood)was sort of Sugar Daddy (was for Jean Harlow and a horde of others, Harvey Weinstein (with more class, he wasn't that crass) to Jean Simmons. Joe Kennedy (a real piece of work and a "great" role model for his philandering sons, bringing his mistress home for Thanksgiving dinner with his family) was a Sugar Daddy

Sexual harassment is about power and entitlement.

LG@27 Your advice is sound for any sexual active person (even those in purportedly monogamous relationships). Real life as opposed to cyber SB/SD relationships tend to involve mutual exclusivity for the duration of the relationship. The SDs' need for discretion and to avoid being embarrassed by the SB (you embarrass rich and powerful men at your peril, they are good enough at doing that to themselves Wilbur Mills and Fanne Fox).

Skeptic @23: As usual, much to reply to!

"They would only be treated as a commodity if they were forced or coerced (by someone else, not economic circumstances)"

I don't see how being forced by economic circumstances into sex work would be any less commoditising than being forced by, say, an abusive partner or a trafficker. Either way, they have no choice; they have no power to say no, either to a specific john or in general. Do you mean that individual clients would treat a sex worker with kindness and respect if she were doing it out of economic necessity? If so, I think you are wearing rose tinted glasses. Some would; others, not so much, and if the alternative were, say, homelessness, she would have to tolerate ill treatment.

Skeptic @25: "I'm not sure if this is sex work because it may or may not involve sex."

You can envision a scenario where a wealthy older man would pay for a young woman's college education and expect a merely platonic friendship in return? I think you'd agree that Anna Nicole Smith, if indeed she didn't have sex with her husband, was a rare exception. An arrangement doesn't need to be a one-for-one exchange of sex acts for cash to qualify as sex work. "If all these men wanted was just sex..." well exactly. A sugar daddy does indeed want something different from a sugar baby than he could get from an escort, but that doesn't mean "not sex." It means sex and. Sex and companionship, sex and a vacation buddy, sex and someone to cook him dinner and iron his shirts, sex and arm candy.
But regardless of any other perks, definitely sex.

Skeptic @28/@29: Agree completely. My comment was in response to Corydon's odious assertion @14 that #metoo could be stopped if women just started charging our harassers money for the liberties they take. Even more odious was his view of sex workers -- and by extension, all of us who took up his strategy of asking for money when we didn't want to consent -- as less than human, and as people who want to be viewed as less than human: "I just realized that I referred to these women as "whatever." I was going to change it, but you know, that's how they want us to think about them so I'll leave it be." Vile, just vile.

Eh. I feel like the letter writer said: "I wanna be all sex-positive and sex-worker supportive, but why is it always Sugar *Daddies*? Seems unequal, and unequal makes me sad. I wish money wasn't so concentrated around the Y chromosome that women sucking up to them is an occupation common enough to be a household word." To which you said: some stuff that didn't really seem related to that? Anyway, I feel you LW.

I’m with original @ 1 in regards to the LW’s gender, not that it matters. A guilt-ridden, subconscious-or-not judgmental person regardless.

Venn 2 22
As I remember it quite a few women, men, wannas and inbetweeners were terrified of the scenario offered by that gender studies student. I sit with my legs crossed, penis well protected as I type this.

I think of it rather like babysitting.

"Dear Dan, my friend wants to babysit for money. While I don't hate children and think that taking care of your own or a family member's children is great, there's something about being paid to watch someone else's kids that's just sordid and gross! I mean, you have to pretend you like this little snot-covered hellion, and be nice to it, change its shitty diapers - all for money! And let's be honest, the sort of kids whose parents' pay someone else to look after them are always the worst! What do I do about this?"

Answer: "It's a dirty job, but people have done worse for money, and ultimately it's her choice. Also, there should be some wacky stories for her to tell you about afterwards over drinks (and a lot of boring and gross ones, probably, but that's the game)."

b07ias @32: But it's NOT always rich men and young women. Occasionally it's rich women and young men -- Madonna springs to mind. And isn't this a sign of the strides we've made? Two generations ago, it was always men with the money and women with little choice but to stay with them. Dan focused on the fact that this particular sugar baby does have a choice, and it's a fair point to make. I feel you, too -- just yesterday I was lamenting that many women, particularly here in the UK, still choose to call themselves Miss or Mrs instead of Ms. But you can lead a horse to water, etc. If certain individuals insist on clinging to patriarchal relics, a true feminist just has to grudgingly accept that that's an unfortunate side effect of choice.

@35 contd. Not only did Dan talk about choice, but he also used the opportunity to lambast the capitalist system that leads to reduced choices, to people having to take all sorts of jobs they don't want. Nice going, Dan!

Ditto BDF@31 The commoditization of human beings is complicated. I really can't address your first response in anything less than a page (and that is without getting into Marxism and labor economics). In once sense we all turn ourselves into commodities, economic necessity forces most of us to do so (i.e. you don't eat etc. if you don't work), but people generally don't dehumanize themselves in the process. To become a true commodity in the sense you use requires the involuntary dehumanization of a person (slavery being best example). I think this may be a apples to oranges comparison type of thing. My undergraduate degree was in economics and I think that probably gives me a different perspective than yours. I don't know if this satisfies you or clarifies what I meant.

Regarding your second response. The answer is yes. Read the first sentence and the examples of my post @8. A lonely widower who wants companionship. Sex would feel like a betrayal of their dead wife. There are lonely people who pay just to be hugged.

I am glad that we are complete accord on at least one thing. The more I know makes me realize how little I know.

BDF I never realized that you were in/from the UK (English, Welsh or Scottish). The English and Americans are two peoples divided by a common language.

Donald Trump is so historically ignorant that he doesn't know that the waves of European emigrants during the 19th and early 20th centuries were people fleeing their shithold countries.

Skeptic @37: I'll skip the economics discussion, as it was LW, not myself, who introduced the concept of "commodification." I just wondered why you asserted a person would be "commodified" if forced into sex work by another human, but not "commodified" if forced into it by poverty. I don't see a difference in these situations, aside from who or what is to blame.

Regarding your post @8. This is clearly one topic area where you know more than I do. However, I may have a broader definition of "sex work" than you do. Camming, for instance, is a form of sex work. Stripping is a form of sex work. Findom is a form of sex work. Many johns pay escorts not for PIV or blowjobs, but for domination, sissification, any other form of non-genital arousal services, and this is still "sex work." I think the sugar baby in this letter is fully expecting that the sugar daddy she finds will want to have sex with her; I think the lonely widower who just wants a hug would be a rare exception to the genre.

To add to BiDanFan@35, there are movie precedents for male Sugar Babies - George Peppard's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's and Bill Holden's Joe in Sunset Boulevard are both aspiring writers who become older rich women's lovers in return for a roof over their heads. Sure these are fictional examples, but it goes to show that the idea was not that unknown over 60 years ago.

Should've said "a roof over their heads in luxurious accommodations."

girliegams @7 - there are ways to be a lot safer -- just letting him know that a friend knows where you are and what time you're supposed to be done would help a lot. Might not prevent rape but it makes murder a lot less likely. Also saying a cheerful hello to the front desk as the two of you head up to the room makes it clear that people have seen you together, in case anything goes wrong.

a skeptic and a cynic @30: "Real life as opposed to cyber SB/SD relationships tend to involve mutual exclusivity for the duration of the relationship."

Mutual exclusivity with regard to SB/SD, yes, but as I understand that culture, both people often have other vanilla relationships at the same time.

Mx Wanna - You are correct, but she did receive a certain portion of uncritical support.

Venn @44: I would guess that the "uncritical support" was more or less revenge fantasy. The way people cheer when the bad guy in the movies meets with an awful end. I doubt there would be as much real-life support for a real woman doing those kinds of things to real, unwilling men.

BDF@40 You would be surprised at what I consider to be sex work (e.g. people who sell their soiled underwear, I know someone who buys soiled panties (and other items) from women and sells them at a mark up on the internet, although where does work end and entrepreneurship begin, someone who manufactures sex objects, women who sell sex toys at sex toy parties or on TV or the Internet) Everyone (not just the performers) involved in the porn industry. I was just limiting myself to SD/SB relationships.

You asked me @31 if I could envisage a scenario and I gave you one (you didn't ask for one that is common) A wealthy person who is asexual, but wants companionship or to present a certain image to the world. Someone who enjoys the company of a certain woman, but has no sexual interest in that person. Paid companionship traditionally involved an elderly woman and a young woman or man.

Being dehumanized by someone who turns a woman (or man) into a sexual commodity. Turning yourself into a sexual commodity (for economic or some other reason) does not dehumanize yourself.

I didn't intend to get into a discussion of economics. I was saying that if I did it would require much more than one page to respond to you.

We could go on forever (hyperbole) back and forth to what end I don't know. [END]

Ms Fan - But one has to take the Dworkinesque view that All Men Deserve It (or agree with Jane from Shirley Valentine) to get to a revenge fantasy from there. It still fits the YGG parameter of being indicative of less-than-good motivation.

There's so much devil in details, rather like the way that a generic candidate from Party X will romp over an unpopular incumbent from Party Y until someone's actually chosen.

It makes me think of Cards on the Table and Poirot's confession to Mr Shaitana that yes, a murderer can perform the act artistically, and there are even people who may well deserve to be murdered, but that his prime concern is for the negative effect on the character of the murderer. Even if she were to emulate that programme about the serial killer who set out to kill other serial killers and set out to target only unpunished rapists to abuse, eventually her judgement would spread and she'd eventually include quite innocuous behaviour as providing cause.

Skeptic @46: "Turning yourself into a sexual commodity (for economic or some other reason) does not dehumanize yourself."

I bet an awful lot of sex workers would disagree.