Sugar Rush or Sugar Risk? Experiences with Risks and Risk Management among Young Sugar Daters

Introduction

Although not a new phenomenon, sugar dating has gained increased public and media attention in Denmark in recent years. In 2017, a TV documentary by the National Danish Broadcasting Corporation (a public service broadcaster) portrayed a young sugar dater and her meetings with wealthy men at luxurious restaurants and hotels that most people can only dream about visiting (Danmarks Radio, 2017). The documentary kick-started a debate on motives for sugar dating and placed the phenomenon on the public agenda. Critics argued that the documentary painted a picture of sugar dating as a luxurious form of dating and ignored the potential personal costs related to sugar dating as well as the similarities between sugar dating and sex work (Wandall, 2018). The public debate and concerns also found their way to the Danish parliament, and in 2020, all parties in parliament signed a political agreement to take preventive measures against ‘prostitution-like relations among young people’ (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2020: 6).

While the 2017 documentary placed the phenomenon of sugar dating on the public and political agenda, knowledge about who and how many engage in sugar dating remains sparse. An exception is a recent study by Dahl and Østergaard (2021), which estimated that about 10% of young people in Denmark between the ages of 18 and 30 at some point in their lives had offered companionship, kisses, or sex in return for material goods. The study also showed that the exchange of intimacy for material goods was more common among young people who came from a socially vulnerable background, which has added to a discussion of whether sugar dating attracts young people who are already socially vulnerable, and whether sugar dating can contribute to increased social vulnerability.

The debate showed that, from a societal perspective, sugar dating is established within a problem-oriented framework that emphasizes negative consequences and risk associated with this practice. However, as argued several times in existing research, risk is not an inherent or objective characteristic: It is socially constructed and influenced by societal contexts, cultural norms, and individual perceptions (Austen, 2009; France, 2000; Reith, 2004). Sugar dating mirrors a late-modern culture of sexuality, in which sexuality can be shaped according to individual needs and desires (Graugaard, 2018). This means that sugar dating is sometimes conceptualized as a cover for sex work, while at other times it is understood as an expression of a change in contemporary sexuality culture, where the boundaries between commercial sex and non-commercial sex are increasingly blurred (Järvinen and Henriksen, 2020). It is within this framework of reflexive awareness that young people navigate their sugar dating activities and potential related risks.

In this study, we aim to investigate how young people navigate the risks associated with sugar dating and ensure their own safety. Specifically, we focus on young female sugar daters and explore the complex social and cultural contexts of sugar dating within the framework of youth risk-taking. This approach is motivated by two key factors: First, the young women in the study all linked sugar dating to the fact that they are young and had a desire to explore before settling down, aligning it with other forms of youth risk-taking. Second, sugar dating is situated within a complex context of societal expectations, gender norms, and power differentials. While societal discourse often portrays sugar dating as problematic, it also reflects the late-modern culture of sexuality, where personal desires drive the disconnection of sex and where ‘the freedom to seek sexual delights for their own sake has risen to the level of cultural norm’ (Bauman, 1998: 21). Examining how young women navigate this complex social and cultural context and how they strategize to minimize potential risks in sugar dating provides insights into how broader social forces shape their behaviours, choices, and vulnerabilities. In essence, our objective is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the lived experiences and dynamics surrounding sugar dating, shedding light on how these factors impact risks and subsequent risk management practices.

Research on sugar dating

As noted by Gunnarsson and Strid (2023), reviewing research on sugar dating is challenging, as ‘it raises the question of what counts as sugar dating’ (p. 2). Existing research describes sugar dating as a phenomenon that unfolds on a continuum between regular dating and sex work. This continuum is especially evident in discussions regarding terminology used in the research. Terms such as ‘prostitution-like behaviour’, ‘youth prostitution’, ‘transactional sex’, ‘compensated dating’, and ‘sugar dating’ are all used to describe the relationship between a sugar dad/sugar mom and a sugar baby (Bjønness et al., 2022; Holmström et al., 2019; Hunter, 2002; Scull, 2020). Several studies discuss whether sugar dating falls under the umbrella of sex work, but according to Scull (2020), ‘sugar arrangements are neither traditional dating relationships nor prostitution but instead constitute a unique relational package with distinct subcultural and interpersonal meanings’ (p. 38). Other studies have also highlighted the distinct nature of sugar dating compared to sex work, because sugar dating (on some occasions) is more relational and flexible and does not necessarily follow a simple cash nexus (Gunnarsson and Strid, 2023; Nayar, 2017). However, existing research indicates that the motivations for engaging in sugar dating share similarities with those identified in sex work research. For instance, a recent study focusing on sugar dating among young people aged 18 to 30 revealed that the primary motivation for participating in sexual exchanges or intimate relationships, with a few exceptions, is economic gain. However, the study also identified concurrent motives such as the desire for attention, excitement, and a confidence boost (Bjønness et al., 2022). These motivational factors align with those commonly observed in sex work research (see, e.g. Henriksen et al., 2021; Vanwesenbeeck, 2013).

Overall, discussions on what sugar dating is reflect a mainstreaming of sexual commerce and the blurred boundaries between commercial and non-commercial sexual relations evident in late-modern society (Järvinen and Henriksen, 2020). This is also noted by several sex work researchers (Bernstein, 2001; Carbonero and Gómez Garrido, 2018; Sanders, 2008). For instance, Bernstein (2007) describes how the so-called ‘girlfriend/boyfriend experience’ is an example of the ideal form of commercial sexual relationship as it combines reciprocity and mutual desire with freedom from conventions and from the burdens of long-term commitments. According to Nayar (2017), sugar dating is at the centre of this development as sugar dating ‘represents an intensification of “girlfriend experience”’ (p. 336).

With the above in mind, we see sugar dating as a form of commercial sexual relationship. More specifically, we conceptualize sugar dating as beneficial relationships/arrangements wherein an older man or woman has a sexual relationship with a younger female or male in exchange for money, gifts, or other material goods (Nayar, 2017; Scull, 2020). The present article uses the term ‘sugar dating’ to describe the actual transactional relationship, ‘sugar dater’ to refer to the younger person engaging in sugar dating, and ‘sugar daddy’ to refer to the person (in this study all the benefactors were men) who compensates the sugar dater.

Sugar dating as an individualized youth risk-taking practice

As pointed out by Graugaard (2018), the prevalence of sugar dating is strongly linked to young people’s intimate and sexual behaviour, and in the current study, we focus on sugar dating as a risk-taking practice connected to the phase of youth. Most studies concerning the risks of sugar dating focus on the potential adverse health risks of the sexual practices that may accompany sugar dating. These studies document that sugar daters have a higher risk of contracting a sexually transmitted infection (Dunkle et al., 2004; Luke, 2005). For instance, Kimberley et al. (2022) find that female sugar daters are twice as likely to have been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection as women who do not engage in sugar dating. Other types of physical and social risks, for example stigmatization, are primarily investigated in studies on how sugar dating is performed and on sugar daters’ motives for engaging in sugar dating (Bjønness et al., 2022; Gunnarsson and Strid, 2023; Nayar, 2017). While these perspectives highlight the potential problems inherent in sugar dating, they do not take into account how young people navigate the complex social and cultural contexts of sugar dating and strategize to minimize potential risks.

In contrast, risk-taking practices and risk management have been a key concern in youth studies on activities such as alcohol and drug use, speeding, and petty crime (Bengtsson and Ravn, 2019). For young people of any generation, experimenting with vices from the adult world is often a temporary phase, and such experimentation is integrated into the social and cultural norms of becoming an adult. This youth transition discourse positions youth as a development stage and within this transition, risks can be positive or negative depending on the social acceptability of the behaviour and its potential to benefit the individual’s development or well-being. Whether a risk is considered positive is subjective and culturally informed (Duell and Steinberg, 2021). Thus, norms play a vital role in determining what risk-taking practices are culturally acceptable and for whom they are acceptable, and it has been argued that not all risk-taking practices are equally acceptable across genders (Bengtsson and Ravn, 2019; Duell and Steinberg, 2021). Risk in relation to young women is often linked to their sexual behaviour, and those who engage in non-conforming behaviour, such as sugar dating, are often seen as at risk (Watson, 2018).

Young people in general are guided in their intimate behaviour and sexual decision-making by societal structures (Graugaard, 2018; Watson, 2018). The increased instability and fluidity of late-modern society have impacted young people’s sexual relationships, which have become more individual, self-developing projects (Graugaard, 2018). As such, young women are expected to be empowered sexually while conforming to socially acceptable sexual behaviour. If they fail to conform, they risk being labelled as sexually immoral. This means that for young female sugar daters the stigma that is already attached to sugar dating is reinforced by the sexual double standard that still exists regarding male and female sexuality (Watson, 2018). Hence, when analysing sugar dating, it is important to understand that sugar dating is not a neutral youth risk-taking practice; rather it is a gendered youth risk-taking practice largely informed by cultural stereotypes of masculinity and femininity (Hoss and Blokland, 2018; Recio, 2022). Recio (2022) notes that the majority of sugar dating relationships are informed by hegemonic heterosexuality and normative sets of sexual behaviour, which can ‘hinder women’s capacity to exercise their sexual agency’ (p. 46). Moreover, a study on young women’s negotiation of consent in their casual and intimate sexual relationships with men reveals the conflicting pressures they face, as they are simultaneously encouraged to assert their sexual autonomy and agency and expected to conform to heteronormative norms and expectations (Burkett and Hamilton, 2012).

The young women in this study are all aware of the potential risks related to sugar dating, and they all state that sugar dating is something they engage in temporarily as a part of being young and exploring new things and meeting new people. In this way, sugar dating is not different from other types of risk-taking that young people engage in temporarily (Bengtsson and Ravn, 2019). As noted by Reith (2004), perceptions of what constitutes risk change with society and risks cannot be detached from the subjective level and the context in which they are perceived. The ability to manage potential risks related to a given practice is cultivated over time. This means that learning to engage in risk-taking practices happens gradually as a person’s experience with a certain practice grows. This also means that ‘the not-yet-mastery of the practice leaves the participants in a more vulnerable position of unfamiliarity and with a lack of control’ (Bengtsson and Ravn, 2019: 129). Perceiving sugar dating as a form of youth risk-taking practice recognizes the inherent tension between the desire to take risks as part of the youthful experience and the simultaneous wish to minimize those risks. These insights form the foundation of our analysis, focusing on how young sugar daters perceive, experience, and navigate the risks associated with sugar dating.

Data and methods

This article stems from a research project that investigates living conditions for persons selling sexual services in Denmark (Henriksen et al., 2021). As a part of this project, we investigated different types of commercial sexual relationships, including sugar dating. This led to the interviews with 13 young women, who all met the primary sample criteria of the study: being currently or recently active in sugar dating and having significant experience with sugar dating (e.g. numerous meetings or sugar daddies).

The research participants were aged between 19 and 29 at the time of the interviews, while their age when first engaging in sugar dating ranged from 14 to 26 years. Their experiences with sugar dating ranged from 3 months to 6 years. All participants established contact with potential sugar daddies by using sugar dating websites (no one in this study had sugar mummies). At the time of the interview, 11 of the 13 research participants defined themselves as active sugar daters, while the remaining two had stopped sugar dating within 6 months prior to the interview (one of the two still sold nude photos of herself to a former sugar daddy in exchange for money).

To find research participants, we used a twofold strategy. First, we created a profile on a popular sugar dating website, explicitly stating our research purpose and intention to engage with men and women experienced in sugar dating. Subsequently, we initiated conversations with users who had sugar dater profiles and engaged in a dialogue about their level of experience. Those who had none or only a few experiences with physical meetings with a sugar daddy were not included in the study. Through our online profile, we successfully established contact with nine participants. In addition, we identified four more participants through word-of-mouth referrals within our personal and professional networks. After initial contact, the details of the interview were agreed upon, for example, whether the participant preferred the interview to be conducted in person, over the telephone, or by using an online platform. Four of the interviews were conducted face-to-face at a location chosen by the research participants and the remaining nine interviews were conducted by telephone or online. We found that it was important to let participants choose the interview setting as some participants expressed that they would not have had the energy to participate in face-to-face interviews. The online or telephone interviews allowed us to include a more diverse group of participants and strengthened our sampling. Furthermore, we found that the visual anonymity provided by these interview formats helped participants to share intimate details without fear of visual reactions from the interviewer (Hammond, 2018). This finding is consistent with research on sex work that finds that the visual anonymity that comes with online or telephonic interviews ‘may help to lessen inhibition and coyness [. . .] rather than being a barrier to frank disclosure’ (Jenkins, 2010: 96). While technical issues did arise a few times during the study, we overall found that the online or telephonic media was well suited for the study.

The interviews were semi-structured and included topics such as social background, experiences related to sugar dating, social networks, and potential plans for the future. The interviews lasted between 60 and 120 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded with the permission of the participant and subsequently fully transcribed. All identifying information was replaced with pseudonyms. The study was carried out in accordance with the ethical guidelines for the social sciences specified by the Danish Council for Independent Research. As such, before the start of the interview, all research participants were thoroughly introduced to the purpose of the interview and given information on storage of audio recordings and transcripts. Participants were told they could withdraw from the study at any time and refuse to answer any interview questions they did not wish to answer. No participants made use of this option. All participants in our study were offered a gift certificate of DKK 300 (approximately $45) in exchange for their participation, which all of them accepted. It is important to note that the gift certificate was not the main motivation for the majority of the participants. Rather, their primary motivation was to share their experiences with sugar dating and contribute to research on the topic. However, we did hear from a few participants, particularly those who faced financial problems, that the gift certificate was an additional incentive to participate.

Findings

Discussion

The sugar daters in this study speak of risks that have physical, social, and economic implications, and they have developed different (more or less explicit) strategies to manage these risks. However, risks do not exist independently and cannot be detached from the dominant discourses on sugar dating or from the subjective level in which they are perceived (France, 2000). We conclude this article by discussing two factors that influence the strategies chosen by the sugar daters. First, unlike other forms of youth risk-taking that often occur within social contexts involving peers, sugar dating occurs in a narrow social context that only involves the sugar dater and the sugar daddy. Thus, the primary responsibility for risk management is placed on the individual rather than being divided among a group. However, the social risks of sugar dating for the individual do not exist in a vacuum, and this leads us to the second factor: that the public discourse of sugar dating is problematic for young people. We argue that the negative associations and the blurred boundaries between sugar dating and sex work influence the risk management strategies employed by sugar daters.

The young women in this study stress a direct link between their involvement in sugar dating and the fact that they are young. Most participants state that it is important to try new things when one is young, and that sugar dating is a way of getting sexual experience before ‘becoming a real adult’ (Jessica). As pointed out by Bengtsson and Ravn (2019), ‘the very routinisation of risk-taking practices can only happen with time’ and a lack of embodied familiarity with a given practice makes the risk of losing control much more likely (p. 131). In other words, it takes time to learn how to engage in sugar dating in a way that is safe and keeps the sugar dater out of risk. We find that experiences over time were integral to risk management strategies. For instance, all sugar daters to some extent rely on their gut feeling when assessing potential risks, and several of the sugar daters who have had bad experiences explain that these were due to their lack of experience. Some state that they were ‘young and naive’ or ‘did not know any better’ (Laura and Mia). Nina, who had been sugar dating for 4 years at the time of the interview, explains that it took her a while to understand ‘the nature of the game’ and that her inexperience regarding sexual relations made it impossible for her to reflect upon whether she was at risk or not.

That the individual over time learns to deal with the risks of sugar dating is crucial. Unlike other forms of youth risk-taking that often occur within social contexts, sugar dating lacks such integration. This hinders sugar daters from learning from others’ experiences or seeking guidance from individuals familiar with their situation. While some may discuss general dating or sexual relations with friends, few have a trusted confidant, such as a close friend or partner, with whom they can openly discuss their sugar dating experiences. Despite acknowledging the potential benefits of sharing their engagement in sugar dating to protect themselves from physical risks, many sugar daters in the study choose not to disclose their activities. For many sugar daters, social risks seem to outweigh physical risks.

Thus, sugar dating is a complex risk-taking practice. As stated earlier, youth risk-taking practices can be considered to be positive if the practices are believed to benefit the individual’s development or well-being. However, our analysis shows that the sugar daters do not believe that society will see sugar dating through the lens of self-developing youth risk-taking due to its ‘kinship’ to sex work. Despite distinguishing factors between sugar dating and sex work highlighted in previous research (Gunnarsson and Strid, 2023; Nayar, 2017), it is important to acknowledge that stigma remains prevalent in sexual commerce, including sugar dating (Adriaenssens et al., 2016; Nayar, 2017; Sanders et al., 2016). The harmful consequences of stigma are consistently recognized in existing literature, although its intensity may vary across gender, occupational sector, and society (Weitzer, 2018: 719). Our analysis highlights the lasting impact of stigma on risk management strategies in sugar dating, exemplified by the reluctance to request upfront compensation and the hesitation to seek help. Jessica’s case exemplifies this, as her sugar daddy exploited her fear of social risk to silence her. Sugar daters are particularly concerned about the potential consequences of being exposed, fearing job loss and educational setbacks due to societal judgement: ‘People would label me a whore and exclude me from the class community’, Mia explains. The blurred boundaries between sugar dating and sex work contribute to this pervasive stigma, making it challenging for sugar daters to seek support when needed.

While both sex work and sugar dating employ risk management strategies, a notable difference lies in the temporal and spatial nature of the relationships involved. Unlike sex work, which often involves fixed relationships confined to specific timeframes and locations, sugar dating relationships are more fluid and encourage emotional involvement that extends beyond the actual meetings (Nayar, 2017). While some sugar daters in our study appreciate the safety and confidence that come with having a regular sugar daddy, mirroring the ideal form of sex work relationships noted in existing scholarship (Bernstein, 2001), it should be noted that the emotional involvement in sex work tends to be limited to the actual encounter. Studies on sex work show that the notion of mutual sexual reciprocity is primarily a commercial strategy employed by sex workers to fulfil customers’ desires for mutual pleasure (Sanders, 2005). In contrast, the boundaries of the transaction in sugar dating deliberately remain blurry, with sugar daters actively involved in maintaining the terms of the agreement beyond a traditional paid sexual encounter (Nayar, 2017). However, some sugar daters in our study choose to end dating arrangements when they become too regular or intimate, as they aim to avoid becoming overly emotionally attached. This suggests that factors beyond those present in sex work come into play in sugar dating, including the negotiation of emotions and the establishment of boundaries around intimacy. These aspects are also significant considerations in understanding risk management in sugar dating.

Conclusion

The current study shows that risk management in sugar dating is complex regardless of why a young person engages in sugar dating. Overall, the analysis shows that norms play a vital role in determining the sugar daters’ risk-managing strategies and that the sugar daters try to navigate the sexual double standard of today’s society. On the one hand, they are expected to be sexually empowered young women who take risks and engage in sexual relations as a self-developing project, and on the other hand, they risk being labelled as sexually immoral for participating in sexual activities deviating from the cultural norms. As such, they are subjected to the same gendered discourses of sexual engagement that affect all young people, but the fact that some of their sexual relations include commercial elements makes it more difficult for them to be open about their experiences. For the sugar daters, this creates a sort of ‘perfect storm’ where they are exposed to social as well as physical risks, but where the management of social risks ends up hampering the management of potential physical risks.

The study also demonstrates that the sugar daters mostly regard risk management as an individual issue and many sugar daters convey a feeling of being on their own if something goes wrong. This underlines the need for a new repertoire of ways that young people can convey their experiences – good or bad – with sugar dating or sexual relations in exchange of economies in general. This also serves as a reminder that further empirical investigation is needed regarding the question of risk and pleasure in the context of sugar dating. In this study, our primary focus is on the negative risks, as these are the risks that the young women in our study discuss most frequently. However, it is important to acknowledge that discussions surrounding young people’s risk-taking, including the public debate on young sugar daters, often take place within a problem-oriented framework (France, 2000). Consequently, it is not surprising that the young women in our study primarily emphasize the negative risks, even though we ask about both positive and negative experiences during the interviews. This is not to imply that engaging in sugar dating does not entail negative risks and, as our analyses demonstrate, managing these risks is crucial for the young women involved in sugar dating. However, our findings emphasize that if we are to avoid social exclusion and alienation of young sugar daters, there is a need for an increased awareness about the underpinning social and cultural factors that influence the risks and the subsequent risk management related to sugar dating. Most importantly there seems to be a need to engage in more nuanced understandings of the social risks attached to sugar dating as ‘the black cloud of [sex work] stigma’ (Weitzer, 2018: 719) affects the sugar daters and risks excluding them from assistance if in need.