SugarDaddy.com: Readers Respond

It's not surprising that men with lots of money are eager to spend some of it procuring sexual favors from attractive young women. Nor is it surprising that Web sites like SugarDaddy.com have sprung up to facilitate this process. But what does it say about our society when a young, educated woman can make a far better living doing sex work than in most other professions?

Nicole McClelland's "What a Choice! Sex with a Sleaze for $100,000 or Writing for Peanuts" explores the power dynamics of sugar daddy relationships, tapping into a host of social, economic and political issues. McClelland's article raises many interesting questions about the lack of professional opportunities for young women, the politics of sexuality, and the role of sex in a capitalist society that commoditizes human relationships.

Our readers weighed in on this article with a thought-provoking discussion about sex work, gender relations and power in our society.

Many readers came to the defense of the sugar daddy set-up, arguing that these arrangements take place between consenting adults and are, therefore, none of our business. Libertine writes: "It's all out in the open, no one is trying to fool anyone about the true nature of the transaction, and the participants are all consenting adults ... everyone who gets involved in this knows full well what they're getting themselves into; it doesn't occur under duress, so I see no reason to complain about it."

Dano M points out that trading sex for money is no different than other financial transactions: "I see little philosophical difference between this type of body for rent and other skills for rent professions."

Reader robedal agrees: "It has always been the case that people rent parts of their bodies to others at various rates. Thus if I was involved in some questionable activities, I could rent the brain of an experienced professional (called a lawyer) to help me break the law or avoid punishment. I see no moral superiority to lawyers aiding criminal activity over persons who rent other portions of their anatomy for varying periods of time."

Other readers argued that sugar daddy relationships are no big deal, since women trade sex for money in one of our most revered and vigorously defended institutions: marriage. Almhco writes: "Is there any real difference between this and the housewife who simply sticks around for the house and car and credit cards, doing her "duty" as needed? Why does a piece of paper make one situation morally correct and the other morally wrong?"

Goeswithness disagrees, pointing out that equating marriage to prostitution is unfairly dismissive of the work done by homemakers. "Actually I think the "comparison to housewife" bit is an unfair cliche. If women married men solely for material possessions, meaning to live disconnected lives, maybe. But in marriages at least people do try to make a life together, make a family together, share the important events in life, support one another. And one might presume that there is love. Furthermore, working at home and raising kids is doing her part towards contributing to make that collective life."

Xenocyd bluntly counters, "The divorce rate has risen in tandem with the rise of financial prosperity of women. Historically, marriage has been largely prostitution. Don't dance around that."

Other readers point out that in our society female sexuality is always a commodity, regardless of whether or not individual women trade sex for money. LeeAnnG argues that "Americans seem to at least tolerate -- and even sometimes aspire to -- the display of the body, no matter how sexual the nature of that display might be ... enhanced breasts and other sexual features of women's bodies are predominant in mainstream television shows. The swimsuit issues of magazines make them big, big sellers. All of this is a form of sex for money, and sometimes immense amounts of money. But somehow we are supposed to stop short of taking money for the consummation of the desires elicited by the promotion."