In Kenya, “sugar” relationships have become both more common and more visible

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/sex_and_the_sugar_daddy

by orf • 8 years ago

117 84 8 years ago

bbc.co.uk

annon2323• 8 years ago

In Kenya, but also in the UsA. Cant believe how many college students become sugar babies to pay college. In the US

moo2Chee• 8 years ago

Global replace "Kenya" with "USA", the tale still rings true.

aphextron• 8 years ago

Or anywhere in the west, really. It's just one more symptom of the horrific rising levels of wealth inequality.

riffraff• 8 years ago

I am unsure I understand your last remark. This seems more a result of the rise of a new medium than the rise of inequality, i.e. sex-for-money and pleasant-partner-to-keep-around-for-money have been around for millennia.

ksec• 8 years ago

Exactly, China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Russia. Arguably less percentage in EU.

Or more like, the world has always been like that in some form or another. Sugar Daddy is nothing new, we just happen to have Internet to spread this information far wider.

epx2• 8 years ago

Please discount the fact that I am a bit of a misanthrope, but... who the hell enters in a relationship not expecting to get something in return?

CamTin• 8 years ago

Outside marketized relationships like boss-underling, employer-employee, and salesman-customer? Pretty much no one who isn't an Adam Sandler villain.

joe_the_user• 8 years ago

It's a tough thing to express. Certainly, we feel like good people are ones who aren't simply calculating a benefit.

But that doesn't mean people don't expect a benefit, it's just that the people we admire expect it without crudely calculating it.

I'd say in a lot of ways, a person entering into a relationship expects benefit and expects to form an "us", a commonality, a partnership, with their other, so that what benefits is "us", the common group, and not simply the individual as a completely separated entity unconcerned with the other.

tmh88j• 8 years ago

Do you not see the difference between a relationship providing a "career" vs a companion?

saagarjha• 8 years ago

Almost nobody. But the benefits don't have to be some sort of personal gain: I'm sure most relationships are just for the "benefit" of someone who supports you emotionally rather than with money/fame/power.

hackits• 8 years ago

Guy talking here. As a man it's best to self actualize and see you-self as a person with feelings, emotions and boundaries. Take a serious look at your health, sexual ,emotional needs and address them individually distinct from each other. After that then branch off to getting sexual relationships with other people as you yourself can identify people with mental disorders and vet people who don't align with your goals and aspiration in life.

If anyone wants a great starting point to help out I would recommend the talks by: https://youtu.be/lMBqFFnSS5U?list=PLe7tfp6fIaMwdMTW2O3-kkBiJ...

For Veting individual you can simply use `Transactional analysis` to quickly filter from people who're high value vs high drama.

savvu• 8 years ago

Have you heard of ants?

epx2• 8 years ago

Yeah, very good :)

onetimemanytime2• 8 years ago

This is probably the most honest one. Pay, do the thing and leave.

noobermin3• 8 years ago

What you said is close to a tautology, and like most tautologies, they are merely a play on words and don't leave any substantial insight.

scotty793• 8 years ago

Tautologies are things that are known to be true thanks to sheer logic of them.

They are very useful becaus they can be solid foundation of any derivation.

throwaw-zxcvbn4• 8 years ago

Not true. There are relationships (for example between mother and child) that are not based on reciprocation. Nothing in the definition of the word "relationship" implies expectations or getting something in return. It's a synthetic proposition, not an analytic (tautological) one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction

lgessler• 8 years ago

The way I see it is that although in most relationships people expect reciprocation, they differ in how strictly the people involved are keeping tabs on the difference between how much each is contributing.

In relationships like the ones described in this article, both parties are paying more attention to whether they're getting what they perceive to be a fair reward for what they are providing to the other, and should the balance ever shift too far out of their favor, they will presumably end the relationship.

On the other extreme, in a relationship between two very close childhood friends or between two deeply romantically involved people, one will often do nice things for the other without (I claim) necessarily checking the books to see all the nice things they've done vs. all the nice things the other's done in the past week before deciding whether to do the nice thing. They just do the nice thing, knowing that in the past the other has done the same for them. Only if there comes to be a very long period of non-reciprocation will the other party wake to the one-sidedness of the relationship and begin to reconsider.

scotty793• 8 years ago

... should the balance ever shift too far out of their favor, they will presumably end the relationship.

This pretty much describes all relationships except those where one falls horribly ill or the ones where one sticks around despite abuse.

They just do the nice thing, knowing that in the past the other has done the same for them. Only if there comes to be a very long period of non-reciprocation will the other party wake to the one-sidedness of the relationship and begin to reconsider.

I think this might be the case in many sugar relationships. That's why it's sometimes hard to describe them as just sex work.

throwaw-zxcvbn4• 8 years ago

It's not only how strictly you keep tabs on things, the nature of the exchanged "goods" changes as well, in particular it becomes more asymmetric.

In an equal relationship, both contribute economic resources, emotional support, domestic work, sexual pleasure, etc. Traditionally, in the West, there was an asymmetry in that the woman provided the domestic work, the man the outside work with the concomitant salary; but the asymmetry has shrunk over the decades, due also to the increased opportunities of women in the work force.

In these sugar relationships, there is massive asymmetry in the nature of the contributions; it's an intermediary between prostitution (pure money vs sex, short term) and marriage (lots and lots of stuff vs lots and lots of stuff, long term), but arguably closer to the former.

Untit1ed• 8 years ago

I'm not sure what I expected, but some kind of NSFW tag would've been nice :|

casefields• 8 years ago

The very top of the page says:

(Warning: Contains adult themes and graphic images)

That isn't enough for you?

Symbiote• 8 years ago

I think, if you can't justify reading a BBC article at work, then you probably shouldn't be reading HN at work.

DoreenMichele2• 8 years ago

Thanks to the choice of illustrations, it could definitely use a NSFW tag. But it's a surprisingly good article about a difficult subject. It's very evenhanded and even notes that there are young males who do this as well.

Sex work is a tough topic for sorting out human rights under the best of circumstances. It sounds like it is even more fraught in the crucible that is Africa.

onetimemanytime2• 8 years ago

>One of her motives, she says, is to be able to support her younger sisters, so they won't need to rely on men for money

Aha! The very definition of taking one for the team :-) .

The news is that now it's wide open and more expected. They'll keep it doing well into their 40's, once you cross the barrier you can always use more money. And odds are that they'll find a taker, albeit an older one and receive way less money.

noobermin3• 8 years ago

I am an outsider to some extent but it's interesting observing a repeat of the so-called "feminist sex wars" here in Africa. One argument is that if the society was more equal economically across gendered lines, then there would be no need for this kind of sex work. This is often used as an argument against sex work in the west as well, but I'm guessing the level of wealth inequality, and not just across gendered lines, is much more extreme in Kenya, so the scale of the difference could push it into a different regime.

I don't know what the answer is. I also don't like the idea of people on the outside imputing their mores unto another group when that group could advocate for themselves.

ddorian433• 8 years ago

Don't you think with economic equality, 80% of females will go to top 10% of males (for free) ? While now at least they pay.

petra• 8 years ago

That's not what we see in the Nordic countries .

meowface• 8 years ago

Are you saying 80% or more of women don't want monogamous relationships?

TheCoelacanth2• 8 years ago

Historically, it has been the opposite. Polygamy has usually coincided with extreme inequality.

ofrzeta• 8 years ago

Aside: I'd rather have a classic article with images and videos instead of that constant over- and underscrolling, images appearing and disappearing etc. I think the innovation is a bit compulsive.

keshab• 8 years ago

I wonder how people come up with these insanity. It does not add any value to the article and is so infuriating. Apart from that, I found the article good.

expertentipp• 8 years ago

Someone come up with a „brilliant” idea, someone else who doesn’t care implements it. That’s how usually short-lived, standard-breaking solutions are created. I’m seeing more and more often on many websites an ad in this „creatively revealing” image.

xyzal• 8 years ago

This was one of the few articles where I appreciated Firefox's Reader View.

laythea• 8 years ago

No! It's cool and hip, plus the template was not very configurable! :) <\UI rant>

tw10102• 8 years ago

I think it's nice that we have both. I don't think there's any risk that this format will replace text articles overall. (If for no other reason than that the economics just won't make sense in all places.)

person_of_color4• 8 years ago

I'd like to hear of any HNers who are involved in this lifestyle. Given SV pay, it must be not unheard of.

malmsteen• 8 years ago

Theres a whole subreddit about it and a few SVs guys talk openly (but anonymously) about it there.

tw10102• 8 years ago

Don't leave us hanging like that. Please link to the subreddit.

throwaway_nnn4• 8 years ago

Go ahead and ask something about it, the throwaway account is ready. Not in SV however. It's been interesting - e.g. I met the smartest (but lazy) person I know and I know for sure that one tech billionaire that you've likely heard of was also doing it.

saiya-jin• 8 years ago

Well, I didn't think about it before, so random thoughts - why this way at all? It seems a rather poor allocation of the money (unless you are super-rich relative to where you live). From what I heard, it ain't a cheap 'hobby', ie ladies expect expensive stuff for the 'services'.

Is the youth the biggest draw? From my experience highest quality sex happens with more experienced ladies, it takes them time to come to terms with their body, their visual flaws (all of us has them) etc. and just enjoy themselves.

What about trust? With prostitute, you know you can't trust her being healthy, with these ladies - is the approach the same or you hope she doesn't have 10 similar 'customers' like you?

person_of_color4• 8 years ago

What's your total compensation?

How much do you spend monthly on your sugar partner?

commodore__64• 8 years ago

Where do you meet the girls?

Do the girls ever fall in love with you? Or you with them?

How many girls do you see at a time? How long does the arrangement usually last?

How much of the remuneration is in cash vs luxury items like jewellery, handbags, phones etc?

throwaw-zxcvbn4• 8 years ago

FWIW, this is rampant in many parts of Asia, too, with a similar discrepancy between traditional culture (Confucianism in China, Catholicism in the Philippines, Buddhism in Thailand, Islam in Indonesia, ...) and today's realities.

Several young women maintain several distinct social media identities: one for family, one for friends, one for "daddies".

ssijak• 8 years ago

And then Facebook starts offering your “daddy” account to your family in the “people you may know category” because it sees that you hang out with them in the same location

DoreenMichele2• 8 years ago

You can't have multiple Facebook accounts. That's an offense that gets you banned if they figure it out.

watwut3• 8 years ago

It might not be that much strong discrepancy. Although traditional culture is against sex before marriage, it prescribes strong gender roles. Male is supposed to earn money and pay things, women is supposed to be nice, gentle and provide nice feelings to him.

If the parts about lifelong commitment and no sex before marriage fails, but other gender conditioning remains, the various sugar daddies etc are logical/natural consequence.

nicolas_t2• 8 years ago

Whenever I think about sugar relationship, I always think of the movie 和你在一起 (Together) by Chen Kaige. One of the character was a woman dependent on sugar relationships and her motivations, fears and the relationships she had with those men was very well depicted.

listic• 8 years ago

Could you please provide a link? I can't seem to find it.

nicolas_t2• 8 years ago

This it the movie https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332639/

throwaw-zxcvbn4• 8 years ago

I wonder, by the way, whether the surge of this phenomenon is an outgrowth of social media.

In discussions with young women of modest means in countries with limited opportunities and huge income inequality (ie most third world countries), it is hard to find arguments against their impression that this lifestyle is their best chance for a good life.

axilmar• 8 years ago

The oldest profession is prostitution. You can find references to it in ancient greek writings, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetaira

watwut3• 8 years ago

They had other professions too. It does not proof it is the oldest one.

a_silly_name2• 8 years ago

"Prostitution is the oldest profession" is a common saying, but not to be taken literally.

Should be read more a sardonic acknowledgement of how innately transactional sex can be, and how the line between 'transactional sex' and 'not transactional sex' can be very, very blurry.

Especially in horrific pre-historical survival scenarios. Hence the saying.

Shorel• 8 years ago

It seems moneylender is an even older one, if the book "Debt: the first 5000 years" has accurate enough information.

randyrand• 8 years ago

“Transactional sex was once driven by poverty”

Isn’t poverty what drives most of us to get any job? I work because otherwise i’d be in poverty.

Are they implying that sex work is the only work available to them? Unlikely. But I imagine sex work is far more profitable and easier of a job than the alternatives - so maybe that actually makes it a good thing?

vinni2• 8 years ago

I really wonder what makes a news article like this interesting enough to make it featured in ycombinator news. I mean from the content point of view. Probably interesting to train a classifier. Has anybody tried?

M_Bakhtiari• 8 years ago

In the Gulf they take it one step further with their Dubai Porta Potties: https://britmannia.com/2016/07/03/dubai-porta-potties/

candiodari• 8 years ago

The old huge problem with empowerment rears it's ugly head. The problem is that freedom is liberating for the powerful, and a prison for the poor.

For rich women, the ability to enter into these "sponsor relationships" is empowering, enabling them to do more. And as long as they can just end it on short notice, certainly empowering.

For poor women, who would not be able to eat without a sponsor relationship or outright prostitution, the freedom is a prison, effectively convicting them to lifelong sex work.

This would also work in reverse. Zero tolerance for prostitution is liberating for the poor, oppressive for the rich. Not just for women even, if you consider for a little bit what the effect on men is, it is even liberating for men.

For rich men, of course the ability to just buy women without needing to hide anything is liberating. Even for men who just want to have sex without condoms (often very strongly legislated against in outright sex work, and enforced by the women, for health reasons) it is liberating.

The same is true for many other issues that current society can't seem to make it's mind up over. For, example, for many young girls, the "freedom to wear the islamic face veil" is not freedom at all, because their parents have a very strong preference (and feel justified in using violence to get this particular issue settled). And of course that leads to further oppression.

But for women who are already in a position of sufficient power to just do what they want, whatever comes into their mind, a prohibition on face veils would be limiting.

However, in both examples it is only liberty at the expense of others that is achieved. Usually liberty for the powerful, and usually men at that, at the expense of poorer people, mostly women.

But we should allow this ... because Beyonce used it to achieve great status. And that it failed 99.99% of those who tried it ? Oh well ...

And there is the small issue that there are many more women for whom outlawing prostitution is liberating, where even just outlawing or socially punishing sponsorship relationships would at least provide safe sex and there are many more girls for whom a prohibition on face veils would be liberating, where it would provide a way out of a bad family position, an initial concession to "family oppression/values" that their parents would be forced to make. Because there are simply much more poor ...

In Kenya, “sugar” relationships have become both more common and more visible

Related Stories