Talk:Sugar dating

Page move
A better name? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverts
Hi The Drover&#39;s Wife. Content was removed in these edits. There are sourcs for all of that. Plus, the prostitution part does make sense. Please, let's restore it with sources, okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It was removed because it was wrong: just because an article focused on sugaring in a college context does not mean that sugaring as a concept is. The "average" is from one article, not cited to who made that claim, and pretty hilariously misinformed. Both parties consent to the arrangement in prostitution as well, which is why I removed it: it makes absolutely no sense; not to mention that (as many sources discuss) the lines between sugaring and prostitution are relatively blurred, and people may well be both. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmmmm...........good points! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphan
It's a bit of an orphan. Could you suggest some places it could go? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * SeekingArrangement has its own article, a summary style breakout of Mistress, the template that is already on the article, and there are probably a few sex work templates/articles it belongs in too. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for that. I'll see what I can do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Students
This is just not true. 44% does not equal "absolutely all" just because you found a few HuffPo trend pieces focused on the student angle. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You'll have to forgive my poor article construction. I'm terribly distracted off-wiki. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Comparison or a link be made with compensated dating (enjo kosai)
These articles can be in fact merged into one. The compensated dating page focuses more on its implications on the Japanese society. --Appleuseryu (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * They're in different cultural contexts, so if you want to tie them together in one article (or to discuss similarities) you should find a source discussing that. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've cross-linked this article with Enjo kōsai through their See also sections, since this was a better target than anything I could find for Sugar Daddy, which is an older term, I think. There may be an opportunity to expand this article with some historical background and link it through references with comparable practices elsewhere. Note that the Enjo kōsai is under a heading of "Spread to other countries", which is a dubious claim. They're linked because of certain similarities, but demonstrating cultural diffusion would need more support.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Euphemistic basis
Something ought to be made explicit in the article: put "sugar baby" "call girl" into any search engine. An interesting exchange —
 * ''"Girls doing what your girls did are known by many names: escort, prostitute, call girl, courtesan, sugar baby, hooker. What’s the distinction?"
 * "…they come with different rates and expectations…. However, at the end of the day, when it’s all said and done, we all played all roles. We saw the same guys. We went through similar internal struggles. Our buyers — johns, clients, customers, tricks and sugar daddies — were equally alike."

(https://lasvegassun.com/vegasdeluxe/2015/sep/23/las-vegas-madam-spills-call-girl-secrets-olympian/)

I think it's disingenuous (at best!) to continue trying to draw a line between a person in a romantic relationship who receives cash, gifts or other benefits in exchange for being in the relationship and the practice of engaging in sexual activity in exchange for payment either as money, goods, services, or some other benefit agreed upon by the transacting parties. The only possible distinguishing characteristic is the undefined word "romantic," but it makes no difference: having sex with a callgirl is after all generally romanticized in Western culture, therefore "romantic," right?

I have nothing against sex workers, and in fact support their rights to organize for recognition. However, the fact must be faced that a whore with one client is still a whore. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Were you thinking "euphemistic bias"?


 * Some people want to summarily lump all of these categories together on a moral basis, but there are meaningful distinctions, both in the character of the transactions and in the degree of social acceptance. It's not surprising that some sex workers would prefer to use newer terms or terms that carry less social opprobrium, but we should not necessarily take this smearing together as dissolving all differences.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  17:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/basis
 * By which I meant that the "article" is multiple layers of lowbrow nonsense, placed here in a smarmy noncritical whitewash with no balancing doubts, and likely thereafter used to further promote the cutesified "sugaring" habits. These aren't matchmaking sites intended to create long-term relationships much less marriage, so are hookup sites with the additional expectation that cash or other "gifts" will be given, therefore prostitution. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a lifestyle or an industry. Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Whilst WP is not a place to promote a lifestyle or an industry, equally it's not a place to make moralistic judgements or preach either. John B123 (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed — the article is indeed preaching (i.e., glorifying a particular viewpoint) and built from a whole slough of moral judgments (e.g., that "sugaring isn't really prostitution" and actually sorta cute). Perhaps you're correct and outright deletion is called for. I'll consider the nomination. Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Sugar baby website mention
Sounds like an advertisement. Should specific sites be mentioned at all? Reads like a slang dictionary entry. Needs proof of percentages. Rozzychan (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed: WP:NOTDIRECTORY among other reasons. Mostly removed. Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Disinformation page; WP:TNT or delete
This page is fringe POV gaslighting, attempting to take commonly understood terms with fixed stable meanings, and not only impose on them the re-definitions used by a particular subculture, but also pretend that it was always thus, erasing the older (and actually uncontested, completely standard) meanings.

All dictionary definitions of "sugar daddy" and derivative phrases contradict the inventions in the lead. As do the other paragraphs of the article.

A second problem is that WP:COMMON requires that the article on this subject, if there is to be one, be under the massively more frequent term "sugar daddy". "Sugar baby" gets much less use, and "sugaring", which is treated here as some sort of known and primary concept, is extremely uncommon. Search engine hits for the latter are mostly for methods of hair removal or food preparation. Which is another indicator of the gaslighting. COMMENCE DELETION. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Black Sexual Politics Writing Intensive
— Assignment last updated by MNC-2016 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Loved your feedback and though it was pretty beneficial when it came to needing to discuss a few more details in exactly what sugaring outside of the basic student perspective in which the authors wrote it as. MichalyLong (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Title change
We love the entire set up about the article. However, feel as though we would want to change the tittle of the page from "Sugar baby" to "Transactional dating". We feel as though this is essential because most of the article speaks on what sugar dating is and refers it all back to sugar baby, sugar mom or sugar daddy terms. By changing the article it will allow us to add more information instead of just broad details of what sugar babies are or do. MichalyLong (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Please start a requested move discussion so other editors can add their opinion. See WP:PCM. --John B123 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A sugar daddy and sugar baby relationship NOT transactional. If there is a specific transactional fee for sex or companionship then that is prostitution.  A sugar daddy is usually an older successful man in an ongoing relationship with a younger woman who enjoys spoiling his companion in different ways.  This is no different than a woman dating a successful man that is close to her age and impresses her with fancy gifts or frequent trips around the world.  The only difference would be the age difference.  This is not to be confused with prostitution in which the woman is looking for a payment of some kind. 2600:1700:D400:18C0:D441:FA2A:365C:9B15 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Sugar dating. Consensus developed to move to Sugar dating. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sugar baby → Transactional Dating – Transactional dating seems to be a better fit for the name of the page. "Sugar baby" is a specific term used for the recipient in sugar dating, which is a form of transactional dating. The article does not even open with discussion specifically on sugar babies. It opens with the line "Sugaring, or sugar dating." This could discrepancy could be fixed with a move to the name transactional dating. SophieVMoon (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment - regardless of whether you support or oppose, the "d" should be lowercase. Red   Slash  21:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The term "transactional dating" doesn't even appear in the article. The article should move to Sugar dating. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Sugar dating per Rreagan007. No such user (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Transactional Dating is a much broader term and includes such things as Enjo kōsai. Support move to Sugar dating. --John B123 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sugar Mama which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sugar dating → Sugar daddy – "Sugar daddy" initially linked to Age disparity in sexual relationships before being moved to Sugar Daddy, the lowercase variant redirected here instead as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. However, I believe it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Google Ngrams shows a vast difference in usage, with "sugar dating" still being something of a neologism. The article can still address the existence of "sugar mama" as a term, but the usage is not equivalent. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. The general trend in article titles has been to avoid gendered titles when the article covers both genders. The scope of this article covers all aspects of sugar dating (i.e. daddies, mommas, babies) and the article title should reflect that. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Rreagan007's second comment. While sugar daddy is far more common than sugar dating, a move would vastly narrow the scope of the article.  —  AjaxSmack  03:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current primary redirect works best. 162 etc. (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A sugar daddy is an aspect of a sugar relationship. &#8213; Synpath 05:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's all bout datings, not just daddies obviously. Redirect is perfectly fine. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 08:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)