Here's a post I put on Dr. Phil's message board (why not?) after watching the show (explained here) the other day. I modified it only slightly, a couple misspelled words and a word or two changed here and there. And, the last sentence, in parentheses, I just added.
“Sugar dating” is not terribly different from relationships on "real housewives" or even "the bachelor." What's more, it's basically just the dynamic within a very stereotypical relationship - rich/succesful man and young/beautiful woman or "trophy wife" - laid bare.
Would this be different if the people in question met through match.com instead? This is hardly unlikely, if even some men look at photos to make their decisions and even some women look at the financial snapshot, there will be matches made that look pretty similar to these...
Would it be different if the people in question met at a bar, got to know each other and began a relationship knowing that due to the gap in their financial situations she would be financially dependent on him from day one?
According to the survey on Dr. Phil's web page, about half of people think it's somehow different if you're married.
To me it's clear: exchanges of goods (including cash, gifts, help with bills, paying for activities, etc.) and services (companionship, advice, back rubs, shoulders to cry on, meals cooked, rooms cleaned, baby butts wiped, etc.) are part of any relationship. Not everything passes between you and every person you have a relationship with. But, money or items of value changes hands in most of them - including the most casual acquaintances like waiters and cab drivers. For most people, sex isn't a part of most of their relationships, but it's a part of a pretty high percentage of dating relationships among adults...
I don't have any hard data in front of me, but I bet there's an extremely high correlation between male ratings of a potential date's physical attractiveness and his overall interest in dating her. I hope the corresponding female correlation between financial strength and overall interest wouldn't be quite as high, but I bet it would be noticeable. This just looks to me like the "top slice" of the attractive singles hooking up and giving each other what they want. It's disturbing that our cultural values are such that these are the attributes agreed to define the "top slice" of the dating pool, but it's hardly prostitution.
Dr. Phil seemed to say, the “only” difference between prostitution and “sugar dating” is that you have an ongoing relationship with the person and that the relationship involves more than just sex, as if that was a trivial distinction. What defines prostitution is exactly that lack of a relationship outside of sex, along with an exchange of money. Prostitution offends our senses because it places one of the most intimate acts of life within the context of a casual, distant and nakedly commercial relationship. Money and sex are exchanged in the relationship, as in most dating relationships. It's when that exchange is the extent of the relationship that it should be labeled prostitution. (How you judge it after that is up to you).
Would this be different if the people in question met through match.com instead? This is hardly unlikely, if even some men look at photos to make their decisions and even some women look at the financial snapshot, there will be matches made that look pretty similar to these...
Would it be different if the people in question met at a bar, got to know each other and began a relationship knowing that due to the gap in their financial situations she would be financially dependent on him from day one?
According to the survey on Dr. Phil's web page, about half of people think it's somehow different if you're married.
To me it's clear: exchanges of goods (including cash, gifts, help with bills, paying for activities, etc.) and services (companionship, advice, back rubs, shoulders to cry on, meals cooked, rooms cleaned, baby butts wiped, etc.) are part of any relationship. Not everything passes between you and every person you have a relationship with. But, money or items of value changes hands in most of them - including the most casual acquaintances like waiters and cab drivers. For most people, sex isn't a part of most of their relationships, but it's a part of a pretty high percentage of dating relationships among adults...
I don't have any hard data in front of me, but I bet there's an extremely high correlation between male ratings of a potential date's physical attractiveness and his overall interest in dating her. I hope the corresponding female correlation between financial strength and overall interest wouldn't be quite as high, but I bet it would be noticeable. This just looks to me like the "top slice" of the attractive singles hooking up and giving each other what they want. It's disturbing that our cultural values are such that these are the attributes agreed to define the "top slice" of the dating pool, but it's hardly prostitution.
Dr. Phil seemed to say, the “only” difference between prostitution and “sugar dating” is that you have an ongoing relationship with the person and that the relationship involves more than just sex, as if that was a trivial distinction. What defines prostitution is exactly that lack of a relationship outside of sex, along with an exchange of money. Prostitution offends our senses because it places one of the most intimate acts of life within the context of a casual, distant and nakedly commercial relationship. Money and sex are exchanged in the relationship, as in most dating relationships. It's when that exchange is the extent of the relationship that it should be labeled prostitution. (How you judge it after that is up to you).
No comments:
Post a Comment