I’ve noticed that pro-sex work feminists tend to applaud sugar babies. Maybe it’s because I’m in Los Angeles, or I’ve seen so many trending Tik Tok videos where it is #goals to have a guy buy you a ton of stuff.
The irony is when a man is married to the woman and buys her things, it’s considered by feminists as lame and unacceptable. So why is it okay to get free stuff from a sugar daddy, but not from a husband who provides out of love? Why do feminists think it’s acceptable to be a sugar baby, but not a woman who’ s financially dependent on a husband? In both cases, the man is acting as the financial provider for the woman.
In both cases, the man is acting as the financial provider for the woman.
What’s the Difference?
Feminists view men who are sugar daddies as losers. Sugar daddies are commonly seen as feeble chumps who are incapable of gaining romantic affection from a woman any other way. Hence the sugar daddy has to resort to plying his sugar baby with gifts and money if he expects her to even bat an eyelash at him. And since almost everything in feminist theory is viewed through the lenses of “power” and “oppression,” the women who are raking in the cash from their sugar daddies are seen as “empowered” over their men.
In contrast, the head of a household who is his family’s breadwinner conjures up an image of a competent man. He is able to provide for his entire family on his one income. He frees up his wife’s obligation to work for money so she is free to focus on other things (like family life, artistic ventures, or private causes like volunteering at an animal shelter).
Feminists view men who are sugar daddies as losers, but the head of a household who is his family’s breadwinner conjures up an image of a competent man.
And since a devoted wife doesn’t view her husband as some groveling fool who is just engaging in a parasitical exchange of money for her companionship, she will readily take on the role of homemaker without viewing it as shameful or unjust. This is a relationship based on fairness and growth because both husband and wife are adding value to each other’s life.
The Mutual Devaluation of Man and Woman
The sugar baby-sugar daddy relationship is based on exploitation. There is no love exchanged in a mutually exploitative relationship. Feminists applaud the sugar baby lifestyle because men are objectified as nothing more than a source of money.
The sugar baby-sugar daddy relationship is based on exploitation.
To grasp how it is exploitation, compare the sugar baby to the mistress. The mistress has a similar arrangement to a sugar baby, yet it is a completely different form of relationship. It is a relationship that, while neither ideal nor sustainable, is at least still built on love. The mistress does not view her man as her sugar daddy, even if he does pay for everything in her life, because she is in love with him.
Feminists, however, consider the sugar-baby as successfully objectifying and exploiting men for their money, turning the tables on the male patriarchy that has objectified and exploited them.
Feminists applaud the sugar baby lifestyle because men are objectified as nothing more than a source of money.
But, while a person may extract some happiness from the sugar baby-sugar daddy arrangement, it will only be short term. When the foundation of a relationship is use, it will be impossible for the people involved to find lasting and fulfilling happiness.
Explaining the Feminist Double Standard
Feminists like to pride themselves on their claim that the feminist movement opened doors and provided choices for women today. Yet when a woman declares that she would like to be a wife and homemaker, she is met with scorn and treated like she has betrayed all the women from the past who have fought for the rights she’s enjoying today.
Here is the truth: the housewife in a loving relationship with a committed partner who sacrifices for her serves as a painful reminder to feminists that they haven’t obliterated such romantic ideals.
Feminists view financially dependent wives as women who obtained their happily-ever-after by allying with the feminist’s patriarchal enemy – the dominant male. This imagined betrayal explains their hostility towards the financially dependent wife.
Feminists view financially dependent wives as women who obtained their happily-ever-after by allying with the feminist’s patriarchal enemy – the dominant male.
When someone's desires are in conflict with reality, they have a straightforward choice: they can either act on the basis of reality and align their desires with reality (face and accept reality), or they can put their emotions above reality, resent objective reality, and fight against it (deny and evade reality).
Feminists, like all women, want to be happy. The problem is, women who have been corrupted by the ideas of feminism do not want to obey the rules of reality in order to attain happiness. It is impossible for a feminist to be in a happy, loving relationship with a man if they hate the reality of what a man is.
True love is so incredibly strong it has the power to compel someone to give up their life for another person. Neither the sugar baby nor her sugar daddy will make sacrifices for each other because this relationship is not built on love. The sugar baby-sugar daddy relationship is based upon use and mutual devaluation. Neither will ever achieve lasting happiness because the woman devalues the man, the man devalues the woman, and both devalue romantic love.