“I Was Worshiped and in Control”: Sugar Arrangements Involving Transactional Sex from the Perspective of Both Sugar Babies and Sugar Benefactors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sugar dating arrangements involve an older partner (“sugar daddy/mommy”) who provides financial support to a younger partner (“sugar baby”) in exchange for intimacy. The current study recruited a U.S. and Canadian sample of sugar babies (n = 45) and sugar benefactors (n = 32) through social media sources to survey them about perceived power in their sugar arrangement, gender roles, and stigma. Sugar benefactors did not differ in perceived power from sugar babies, nor in endorsement of traditional gender roles or stigma. Directed content analysis analyzing open-ended responses about associated outcomes indicated that both partners placed strong emphasis on companionship despite the importance of sex within arrangements. Sugar babies reported that money drives participation, although arrangements fulfill other needs, such as pleasure. Other benefits include having an arrangement with clear boundaries and expectations. Disadvantages include concerns for safety, that being physical safety for babies, and reputation and being used for money for daddies. Notably, both groups perceived sugar babies as having equal or more power than sugar benefactors, although this was often attributed to sugar babies’ attractiveness and youth. Findings include insights from both babies and benefactors, and support perspectives that sugar dating is distinct from traditional sex work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".