Abstract
Sugar dating is a complex phenomenon that unfolds on a continuum between traditional dating and sex work. Existing research shows that sugar dating is often portrayed as rife with potential physical and social risks, and from a societal standpoint, it is also often characterized as a risky activity, particularly for young individuals. In this article, we investigate the emergence of these risks and how young sugar daters strategize to minimize them. The findings demonstrate that risk in sugar dating is influenced by complex social and cultural contexts, where especially the stigmatized nature and gendered storyline of sugar dating constitute risks for young sugar daters. These risks are further shaped by the cultural construction of late-modern sexuality, which favours elusive and volatile sexual relations combined with a desire to explore while being young. The young women in this study view sugar dating as a temporary activity that they do not imagine themselves engaging in when they get older. They associate sugar dating with the phase of youth, but unlike other types of youth risk-taking, sugar dating does not occur within the social context of peers. Instead, risk management in the context of sugar dating primarily becomes an individual responsibility, as involving others is perceived as carrying substantial social risks of being labelled as sexually immoral. The study underscores that risk in sugar dating does not exist in a vacuum; rather, it is intertwined with complex social and cultural contexts surrounding sugar dating. By shedding light on these intricate factors, our research contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the lived experiences and dynamics of risk management within the realm of sugar dating.
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
Experiences with risks
In this section, we analyse the young women’s experiences of potentially risky episodes when sugar dating. Some of the more common risks expressed in the interviews are the risk of not being compensated, the risk of being stalked or otherwise harassed by sugar daddies, and the risk of being outed as a sugar dater with the inherent consequence of social stigmatization. Some of the rarer risks experienced by sugar daters include rape, violence, and sexually transmitted diseases.
We start by introducing the stories of Kira and Nina, who have been sugar dating for 3 to 4 years. Kira is currently on sick leave and Nina is seeking full-time employment. Overall, both women are content with sugar dating as they find it allows them to have casual sexual relations. However, they also provide examples of the more common risks and unpleasant episodes. For instance, Nina has experienced the risk of being outed. She explains how a man, after seeing her sugar dating profile, found her phone number on social media and started texting her.
All of a sudden, this guy starts texting me: ‘Hi, it’s me X from S.D. [sugar dating website]’, and I just replied ‘I don’t know anyone from S.D. I don’t know what you are talking about’, and then he was like: ‘But I know you [. . .] I know what town you’re from, and what your parents do for a living’.
The man also started sending Nina nude photos, became increasingly verbally abusive, and threatened to out her to her family. Nina describes the experience as ‘creepy’ and ‘very unpleasant’. Like Nina, Kira has also experienced verbally abusive behaviour from men who found her on a sugar dating website: ‘It happens all the time on the site [sugar dating website, ed.]. If people don’t get what they want or misunderstand you [. . .] you can really end up in a shitstorm’. Like most of the sugar daters in our study, neither Kira nor Nina has experienced that the men acted on their threats, nor have they ever experienced physical violence from sugar daddies.
In addition to verbally abusive behaviour, some sugar daters in the study also mention episodes where they have felt scared and at risk of being in physical danger. One of them is Sandra, who began sugar dating about 1.5 years prior to the interview as a way of earning money and getting more sexual experience. Sandra describes sugar dating as a ‘confidence boost’ and as a way of getting more in touch with her own sexual boundaries and preferences. However, when talking about boundaries and risks, especially one episode springs to Sandra’s mind. She had agreed to have sex with a sugar daddy in his car. After they started having sex, he tells her that he has forgotten all his cash at home. When asked about how that made her feel, she replies:
At first, I remember feeling cheated and like I had wasted my evening [. . .] but then I got really scared. It was just the two of us, it was dark, there was no one else around. It was just in the middle of nowhere. It was a total nightmare. He asked me if I wanted to stop and go home but I said that we might as well just go on and finish it (laughs). But basically, I was just scared of saying no. It was . . . I was scared for my life. I had no idea . . . I did not know who this guy was or what he might do to me.
After having sex, Sandra discovers that the sugar daddy has taken his condom off during sex, but she is too scared to confront him, and she is relieved when he finally drops her off at home. Sandra never gets the money they had agreed upon. Sandra’s experience is an example of another common risk related to sugar dating: the risk of being cheated out of your compensation, which is a risk all the interviewed sugar daters have experience with.
Other participants have also experienced feeling that they were in physical danger, and a few even report stories of rape or physical violence. Ditte started sugar dating because she needed money to pay for an electricity bill. She was living with her mother at the time, but as money was short, Ditte saw ‘no other opportunity than to sacrifice [herself] sexually’. In the interview, Ditte recounts a situation where a sugar daddy became increasingly aggressive during sex:
It was so scary. His facial expression, his eyes and everything changed and he was SO beastly to look at and I got really scared [. . .]. The sex was aggressive, and the way he changed his facial expression was like if he was a fucking psychopath or obsessed by a demon. Afterwards, I felt like I had been raped.
Ditte describes how she was shocked and flustered by the experience, but it was late, and she ended up spending the night with the sugar daddy despite the bad experience and despite the risk of it happening again.
Another sugar dater, Jessica, provides several examples of experiences with physical risks in relation to sugar dating. Jessica describes how she could not relate to having sex (or to be compensated for sex) at the age of 15 when she started sugar dating on a regular basis, but ended up doing it anyway as it was ‘a part of the whole set-up’. Jessica started sugar dating because she needed money and found sugar dating ‘fun and a great way to meet new and interesting people’. Even so, Jessica has several experiences of being subjected to violence and rape by sugar daddies. Especially episodes related to one specific sugar daddy stand out. At one point, when she was 17 years old, she ended up living with a sugar daddy for about 2 weeks. The sugar daddy was physically violent, and he raped and beat her repeatedly. However, Jessica was homeless at the time and though she tried to find other places to sleep, most nights she had to ignore the potential physical risk and stay at her sugar daddy’s apartment.
I had no other options than to stay at his place, otherwise I had to sleep outside on the streets [. . .] sleeping over at friends wasn’t always an option [. . .] but every time I went back to his place I was raped.
After the first rape, she threatened to report him to the police, but he convinced her that the police would never believe her. Jessica was still sugar dating at the time of the interview, but as we will see in the next section, she now uses different strategies based on her previous experiences to avoid putting herself at risk.
Risk management strategies
When talking about risk management, the interviewed sugar daters especially mention potential physical risks, social risks, and the risk of being cheated by sugar daddies. In this section, we consider the different strategies that the interviewed sugar daters use to manage these risks. Most of the sugar daters’ risk management strategies rely on ‘gut feelings’ (quote, Jessica and Kira) and quick judgement calls. However, most of the sugar daters also describe more specific risk management strategies that they use to support their judgements or gut feelings.
One strategy is described as a screening process that starts as soon as contact with a potential sugar daddy is established on a sugar dating website. The overall purpose is to understand the sugar daddy’s motives and to establish whether there is chemistry. Most sugar daters focus specifically on verbal style, and some of the more experienced sugar daters explain that they have developed a specific way of communicating with potential sugar daddies as a part of their screening process. Kira says:
I think that I’ve developed a way to communicate. I know now that if they answer my questions in a certain way then it is ‘a trigger’. And I know if they respond negatively to this or that, then we are not going to meet, well, you know I have ways to . . . it’s hard to explain, actually.
Emilie, who had been sugar dating for a few months prior to our interview, explains that it is important to pay attention to how a potential sugar daddy reacts if he disagrees on the terms of a potential meeting. If the sugar daddy reacts by offering more money, she sees it as a clear sign that he does not respect her boundaries. This is also a warning sign for Michelle, who also becomes suspicious if a sugar daddy offers what she thinks is an excessive amount of money. To her it is also important that a potential sugar daddy has a photo of himself on his profile or is willing to send her one, if not ‘it’s just weird and definitely a person you should stay clear of’, she says. Another experienced sugar dater, Mia, also pays attention to the profile of a potential sugar daddy and how they communicate. She generally chooses men who write longer messages and explain upfront what they are looking for because ‘this also tends to be the adult and mature ones, where money doesn’t tend to be a problem’. Hence, Mia uses this strategy to avoid one of the more common risks, which is the risk of being cheated of one’s payment.
For some of the sugar daters, the initial screening primarily consists of texting or talking on the phone with the sugar daddy, exchanging pictures, and, if possible, finding information about the sugar daddy online. A few sugar daters, such as Kira and Emilie, use a more extensive screening process by adding a so-called chemistry meeting with potential sugar daddies before going on an actual date. Kira and Emilie explain that meeting reduces potential risks as it allows them to check if the sugar daddy respects their rules and boundaries. Both have experienced that some sugar daddies are reluctant to meet prior to an actual date. Regardless of the extensiveness of the screening process, the overall strategy is to note the sugar daddy’s verbal style and how the sugar daddy responds to rules or when his requests are denied. This is clear when Emilie explains purpose of the chemistry meeting:
If I stand my ground and insist on a chemistry meeting, some of them say: ‘Ah come on! You have to give a little’. And if that’s the case, I always reply ‘I’m not interested’. [. . .] The meeting has two purposes. It’s a security thing: ‘Is he weird? Can I count on him?’ and besides that, it’s also a chemistry thing: ‘Do I like him? Is he nice?’
On some occasions, risk management is confined to the actual meeting with the sugar daddy. Jessica, who has experienced several violent episodes related to sugar dating (cf. the first part of the analysis), explains that she relies on the gut feeling that comes with experience. For instance, she never goes directly to her sugar daddy’s apartment because she wants to avoid a situation where she cannot get out again. Instead, she arranges for the sugar daddy to pick her up nearby; this provides her with a way out if she feels insecure:
Never go directly into their apartment [. . .]. Always make sure you have 5–10 minutes to assess: Okay, is this guy weird? And do I really want this [. . .] If it’s a new sugar daddy and we arrange to meet at his place, I make sure that he comes and picks me up beforehand, because during the car ride I can judge whether or not I feel like going through with it. I can completely legitimately get out of the car [. . .] and walk away [. . .] and if he follows me out of the car and into the streets, I just yell really loud: ‘No, I don’t want to fuck you for money’, that is almost certain to scare him off.
Another strategy used by sugar daters during the date is to track the location of their phone or to let friends or partners know where they are going. However, as stated by Kira, it is important that this is someone she trusts completely as it may otherwise make her vulnerable to social stigmatization. If they chose to involve somebody else in their activities, the sugar daters often entrust a close friend or partner who is also involved in sugar dating or who they find is ‘sex positive’ (i.e. non-monogamous), as Kira puts it. Yet not all the sugar daters have friends, partners, or networks they can rely on. This is for instance the case for Ditte, Natali, and Jessica, who have contact neither with their families nor with their close friend.
The risk of social stigmatization also affects the sugar dater’s strategies to avoid being cheated out of their compensation. The most obvious strategy to avoid this is to ask for the money upfront. However, the sugar daters are reluctant to do so, as such an upfront transaction can give the appearance of sex work, which all the participants say makes them even more vulnerable to stigmatization. Another option is to report the sugar daddy to the police to get the compensation agreed upon, but as this also comes with a risk. As Jessica said, ‘it can’t be known that I get money this way [. . .] it can ruin your reputation for good’.
All the sugar daters in the study are very aware that sugar dating poses a social risk, and most sugar daters have strategies to avoid social stigmatization. The most common strategy is to mask personal information when communicating with sugar daddies, for example by using an alias and by sending photos where their face and identifying markers such as tattoos have been removed. Most sugar daters are also hesitant to bring sugar daddies to their home, and many sugar daters hold back information about family relations, their job situation, and other personal matters. Despite these precautions, several participants explain that it is difficult to keep one’s identity hidden, because there is so much information available on the Internet. As stated by Mia:
Even though you do everything to keep your personal life private, there is always someone who finds out who you are and where you live.
Some of the sugar daters find that sticking to a few regular sugar daddies is effective in managing both physical and social risks, as this allows them to develop a sense of familiarity and trust with the sugar daddy over time. For instance, Sandra has experienced that having regular sugar daddies reduces the likelihood of being cheated out of her compensation, and in some cases, she even receives more than the agreed amount. However, not all sugar daters are comfortable with this approach, as they perceive it to be too intimate and personal, making it challenging to establish emotional distance from the relationship. Laura, Kristina, and Jessica, for example, prefer the thrill of meeting new sugar daddies and enjoy the excitement of taking chances, relishing the opportunity to meet ‘new and interesting people’, as Jessica highlights. In addition, some sugar daters emphasize that their encounters in sugar dating have given them a better understanding of their own sexual boundaries and preferences. This demonstrates that for some young women in the study, sugar dating can offer subjective benefits and an experience of personal development. However, it is essential to note that even though these experiences may be positive from the individual’s perspective, they cannot be conceptualized as positive risks due to the prevailing societal stigma surrounding sugar dating. This discrepancy highlights the intricate interplay between individual perceptions and societal judgements in the context of sugar dating, where subjective experiences of excitement coexist with the negative risks posed by societal stigma and the gendered expectations surrounding young women’s sexual behaviour.
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.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Stefan Bastholm Andrade, Line Christiansen, Louise Bom and Rikke Kjærsgaard Amtoft, who were all part of the larger research project of which this interview study is an off-shoot. The authors thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and useful insights on earlier versions of the article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
