Lessons from the "sugar daddy" phenomenon

It is often said on Manosphere blogs- not without very good reason- that women seek the highest-status men that they can find for the specific purpose of securing comforts for themselves. It is also often said, again with very good reason, that men are attracted to youth and beauty, while women are attracted to wealth and power.

Feminists try to refute the obvious through tortured logic and no end of easily dismantled straw men. It is refreshing, then, to see that the truths outlined above will soon be captured and documented on film for the world to see:
A new documentary is set to hit our screens in December, which will lift the lid on the sugar daddy dating phenomenon; an industry which is quietly booming in the U.S., but one that is, for many, little understood. [Didact: Alpha fux, Beta bux, anyone?]
Daddies Date Babies follows the trials and tribulations of five New York-based 'sugar babies' in their late teens to twenties who provide sex and companionship to 'sugar daddies' - wealthy, generally older men - in return for financial support. 
'The women want as much money as possible for as much stability as possible,' one participant says in the film's trailer. 'The men want to pay as little as possible for as much novelty as possible.' 
The concept behind the short documentary was formed after filmmaker Parinda Wanitwat happened across immersive journalist Melanie Berliet's undercover account on being a 'sugar baby,' penned for Vanity Fair
The site Miss Berliet used to source her Sugar Daddy encounters was Seeking Arrangement; the industry's Match.com equivalent, and the site where Ms Wanitwat was to source her film's subjects. 
Launched in 2006, Seeking Arrangement matches willing sugar babies - 44per cent of whom are female college students - with wealthy sugar daddies. It's free to join for women, and there are approximately eight women for every one man on the site.

'I got into sugar babying because I didn't have a job, had graduated from college and needed money,' one of the film's subjects, 25-year-old Tess Wood, told The Huffington Post. 'It seemed easier than bar-tending. It seemed like a very available option. It seemed easy to fall into.'

Ms Wood, who says she agreed to take part in the documentary to 'deconstruct the stigma' of sugar daddy dating, has enjoyed both success and disappointment as part of her experience. 
She has been involved in 'mutually beneficial' relationships in Chicago, New York and Florida, and feels that the 'shame' people feel around sex and sex work needs to shift.
Well, at least the girls involved in this business are honest about their motivations and desires. That is far more than can be said for most college-educated feminists.

Believe it or not, the first thing that I thought of when I saw this was a concept in economics called "partial equilibrium theory". (Yes, my mind works in strange ways. Especially when I'm on an endorphin high from a hard squats workout, combined with the effects of alcohol.)

Partial equilibrium theory concerns itself with how an "equilibrium" is found for a single market between the supply of a good and the demand for it. In this specific case, the good is, quite simply, sex. Essentially, we reduce the market down to two basic variables- the woman who supplies sex with the aim of maximising her material comfort, and the man who demands sex with the aim of minimising his overall cost.

In graphical terms it looks something like this:
{Insert awkward nerdy memories of Econ 201 from uni here}

Minus all the fancy notation, all this means is that there is a point at which the demands of rich men meet the demands of hot young women. And the method by which the costs of the transaction are minimised is a "dating" website, which as it happens is actually an extremely efficient way for both parties to obtain what they want.

Several rather interesting questions spring out immediately from this thought experiment.

First, what is the difference, if any, between what these women are doing, and outright prostitution?

Answer: none whatsoever.

These women provide sex in exchange for material reward. One could argue that this is true of almost any modern dating exchange- IF you are the blue-pill sap that pays for everything, that is. The basic fact is that these women are prostitutes. They sell their bodies in exchange for material comfort- without engaging in the reciprocal duties that are otherwise expected of a wife or girlfriend (or, in Blackdragon-style terminology, MLTR/OLTR/LTR).

And, as long as these women are comfortable admitting this to themselves and to others, there is no conflict. Let them pursue their individual ends just as they want- they are doing no harm to anyone else, they certainly are not doing harm to me, so as far as I am concerned, let them be as slutty and promiscuous as they please.

As Inara Sera would say,
One of the virtues of not being puritanical about sex is not feeling embarrassed afterwards.
Second, are the "sugar daddies" in these exchanges really doing the best they can in economic terms?

Answer: no way.

Think about it. In order to access a ready supply of young women for sex, these men are willing to pay not exactly insignificant sums of money for each sexual encounter. The mathematics is pretty brutal- look at this video from good ol' Badd Popp if you want an extreme example of this phenomenon:

From a man's perspective, you should never, ever, ever have to pay more than the minimal price necessary for sex. Make no mistake- every man pays for sex, one way or another. There is always a cost associated with it. That's just the way it is- there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

Third, with this lesson in mind, are these "sugar daddies" acting sensibly from a red-pill perspective?

Do I really need to answer that at this point?

The reality is that these are very rich men who otherwise have next to zero game, who use their wealth to secure what other men can secure for themselves at a far lower cost.

Do wealth and power hurt you when it comes to pulling hot women? Of course not. There is a reason why otherwise average, and even ugly, men- like, say, the current and previous President of the Communist nation formerly known as France- are able to pull very hot women into their beds.

Left: Gormless gurning idiot. Right: Well, she ain't exactly a cave troll...
Anyone else notice what a midget Sarkozy really is?
With that being said, it is entirely possible to master a few simple rules and get women of this quality without anything like the expenditure that these sugar daddies are engaging in. All you have to do is follow the advice of men like Halfbreed or Blackdragon- if you do indeed decide to pursue a hedonistic lifestyle like this, your cost per bang is going to be dramatically lower than what these men are paying.

And if, indeed, you DO want to pursue such a lifestyle, you should always seek to reduce your total expenditures on women. There are other important things in life on which to spend your money- a reasonably comfortable apartment, grass-fed beef, great books produced by great minds, gym memberships, Krav Maga lessons, concealed carry permits... The list goes on and on.

It is perfectly acceptable to spend money and time in the pursuit of women. It is never acceptable to waste either commodity.

Ultimately, these men are simply thirsty Delta males who seek to use their money as a shortcut to get what they want- but because they have not put in the work and the effort required to secure what they want, they end up paying a far higher price than they otherwise would have if they had bothered to learn some basic truths about the world that we now live in.

They would be far richer as a result- and the young women that whore themselves out to them would otherwise have learned some very valuable life lessons to boot.


  1. Depends on how you define cheaper. For most of the sugar daddies I would guess that time is a more precious commodity than money.

    The money they spend is probably well worth the time they are saving by otherwise employing other versions of game.

    Plus I suspect they don't have to spend a lot of energy on LTR game either, which quite frankly takes more time and effort the longer it goes with less reward over time.

    Most people have more time than money, it is generally the reverse for wealthy men so I'm not sure there real is a "cheaper" way for them.

    In economic terms for a man that makes $20 an hour, an hour of effort is the loss of $20. A guy that makes $400 or $500 an hour (and there are lawyers that makes that) an hour of effort is the loss of $500.

    So for a $20 an hour guy a 100 hours of effort is worth it to hit the streets, number crunch and get the girl(s), for the rich person, its better to drop $5000 on a sugar baby for a weekend, its cheaper that way.

    And lets be red pill here, it is way cheaper for a rich guy to do this, then to get married. Terrence Popp's video is about marriage and a wealthy man is a fool to get married. One of Robin William's wives was getting 50000 a month for life and Robin wasn't getting sex for that, he was just paying.

    A sugar daddy could "spoil" his baby on a fifth of that a month and get a new college girl every couple of years. And not all that money has to be directly on her, a couple fun trips to Europe, fancy hotels and restaurants, and giving her a couple thousand in spending money, the opera, whatever.

    Its marriage that's too expensive with no guarantee of sex at all on an aging woman that believes she's entitled to everything you have (while these girls feel privileged). Its also cheaper than keeping a miustress in the traditional sense.

    A mistress requires a fair amount of time invested, and has almost the same level of costs to maintain in the traditional sense as a wife if its long term.

    1. Even spending $10K a month on a young college grad is not economical- you'd have to be a multi-millionaire to have that kind of money sitting around as pocket change. By contrast, finding and banging some Tinderella requires far less investment and minimal effort.

      I'm quite sympathetic to the view that time is money, and that rich men who can afford it would be better off using their wealth to compensate for a lack of game. But I'm also not keen on wasting money. And this "sugar daddy" thing is exactly that- a huge waste of money. There are better and more economical ways of getting sex.

      Hell, as long as we're running the numbers, I wonder whether a professional escort would cost as much as what some of these guys are paying to their "sugar babies". I have no hard data on the subject, it would be interesting to find out.

    2. Considering what the disgraced major of New York was paying, the high end escorts are more expensive than the sugar babies.

      Part of what's being paid for is the fantasy. The high end escorts are sold as highly educated, upper class women, with sophistication, well traveled, speak five languages. Prime pussy so to speak. Its all a sales job.

      The "sugar babies" are the fantasy of a college girl, pretty, young girl next door for the most part. He's being a mentor to her. He's indulging her, the way a man indulges his daughter. Before the incest allegations, most men are indulgent when they are in a relationship

  2. They'd be better off, financially, paying for outright whores.

    1. Almost all men would be better off financially paying outright whores, but they're illegal in most of the United States, and the ones in the bunny ranch can run as expensive as a sugar baby for a night.

    2. Yes, prostitution is not an outlet unless you're in Nevada. This is not, in my opinion, a good thing.


Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts