Feminist 'Sugar Babies' Seek Older Men to Fund Their Business Ventures

They’ve freed the nipple, popularized hats that represent vaginas, normalized hookup culture, and tried to convince us that gender is a social construct. So what’s next for feminists? Becoming a sugar baby of course! According to, “sugaring” is an excellent option for the modern female entrepreneur. In an article called “Why Have I Been Dating for Free When I Could’ve Had a Sugar Daddy?” Aimée Lutkin admits that “it’s hard not to be sucked into the allure of this idea.” Well yeah, if you’ve bought all the other lies feminism sold you.

Sure, it seems like accepting large sums of money from a man in exchange for the privilege of dating (and sometimes sleeping with) you makes you no better than a prostitute. And it looks an awful lot like a sugar baby is just entertaining the “toxic” male fantasy of owning a woman and making her do whatever he wants. But it’s actually super feminist. Really, I swear! There’s even a conference and everything so you know it’s a legitimate business enterprise. It’s called Sugar Baby Summit (I’m serious).

Since all men are “toxic” pigs, and a woman’s job is to pursue a career at the expense of romance, and having sex is something akin to grabbing a drink, why not ask your date to pay for the luxury of dating you? “Only a week before attending the summit,” Lutkin writes, “I was ranting to a friend about how many men message me on regular apps asking for what amounts to, in my mind, free sex work.” Her conclusion: “Sugar Daddies are at least recognizing that what they’re asking for has value. Women’s time has value.”

According to Lutkin, lots of sugar babies are “entrepreneurs” who are using the money and connections of their sugar daddies to start a business. A woman Lutkin spoke to at the conference named Shannon Roy-Wyatt, for example, said that her sugar daddy put her through cosmetology school and helped her start her own salon. So, you know, it’s totally fine to prostitute yourself if you’re trying to start your own business. I mean, it’s tough out there for a woman — all those men starting hair salons — it’s hard to break into the business. A girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do, am I right?

But wait, don’t call a sugar baby a prostitute. Apparently sugar babies say they’re not sex workers. Of course, “none deny occasionally having intimate relations” with their sugar daddies, but it’s not sex work. It’s just getting paid to have sex. Which is totally different. Obviously. In fact, sugar babies say “sugaring” is just “another style of dating.” Sure, if dating is the practice of going out with a guy and letting him use you for sex so you can use him for his money. (What’s that? Did you think dating was actually the practice of getting to know someone so you could decide if you wanted to be in a relationship with him? How silly! Nobody wants to be in a relationship with a man, they’re all toxic!)

Lutkin also talked to a sugar daddy, Timothy Shannon, who explained that he became a sugar daddy so he could have “companionship with extremely clear boundaries and a low demand on his time, allowing him to focus on his work.” So, basically he wanted permission to be the kind of jerk feminists always complain men actually are. But this time it’s totally okay with feminists because he’s paying her to act that way, and that shows he values her. (Isn’t that sweet?)

Shannon says that sugar daddies aren’t looking for the most dolled up, ultra sexy girl they can find. In fact, those girls are a little frightening, he admits to Lutkin. What they really want is a “girl next door.” Lutkin finds this “disgusting” for some reason. I find it sad. Have women become so much like men that actual men are willing to pay to spend a little time with a women who actually acts like a lady? (Or at least acts like she’s acting like a lady. Because ladies don’t accept money in exchange for sex. Obviously.)

There really is no point in trying to understand the logic of how it can possibly be feminist to accept money for companionship and sex. Feminist logic never makes any sense. Why would this time be any different?

Join the conversation as a VIP Member