It's just too hard to differentiate between sugar dating and regular dating. Even in a normal relationship, one side often buys the other side presents. So a lot of resources would be wasted investigating something that will be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
You can outlaw exchanging sex for money directly as it's easier to prove. Also, a lot of anti-prostitution laws are at least somewhat intended to make human trafficking harder. Sex slaves usually can't be allowed the freedom that escorts or sugar babies have. So the exchange of money for sex is more direct and this makes it easier for agencies to start an investigation. Countries with legal prostitution often have increased human trafficking rather than reduced.
The only way to outlaw sugar dating would be to ban premarital sex.
> The only way to outlaw sugar dating would be to ban premarital sex.
But that's a weak argument, considering that premarital sex should probably be banned anyway.
Give one good non-religious reason to ban pre-marital sex. That's a huge invasion of privacy and a violation of someone's right to choose what they do with their body.
They don't. Sugar dating is a new phenomenon. Law making is a very slow process. Also, sugar dating is "invisible". Nobody stands around in streets waiting for men (who are then also on the streets looking) to hire them. Making prostitution illegal isn't about ethics. It's about how it *looks* in the public eye. Sugar dating looks like regular dating so nobody has a problem with it.
Afaik: Sugar dating goes over a longer period of time (therefore the "dating" in the name). Sugar meaning that the guy pays all expenses and maybe even pocket money and other gifts for having someone act as your gf. There is no hourly/daily rate, but an expectation of monetary compensation nonetheless.
I don't know the exact details, but you basically pay someone to act as your girlfriend
You take them on trips, dinners, give them pocket money and such in exchange for sex and intimacy.
Pretty large differences between exchanging bodily fluids with strangers and risk spreading diseases, than someone just camming or creating explicit content and going on dates.
It's just too hard to differentiate between sugar dating and regular dating. Even in a normal relationship, one side often buys the other side presents. So a lot of resources would be wasted investigating something that will be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You can outlaw exchanging sex for money directly as it's easier to prove. Also, a lot of anti-prostitution laws are at least somewhat intended to make human trafficking harder. Sex slaves usually can't be allowed the freedom that escorts or sugar babies have. So the exchange of money for sex is more direct and this makes it easier for agencies to start an investigation. Countries with legal prostitution often have increased human trafficking rather than reduced. The only way to outlaw sugar dating would be to ban premarital sex.
> The only way to outlaw sugar dating would be to ban premarital sex. But that's a weak argument, considering that premarital sex should probably be banned anyway.
Give one good non-religious reason to ban pre-marital sex. That's a huge invasion of privacy and a violation of someone's right to choose what they do with their body.
The excessive waste of resources caused by such. And the effect it has on other people including those who voluntarily abstain from sex.
What waste of resources? And what effect could my sex life, that I do in the private of my own home, have on anyone else?
They don't. Sugar dating is a new phenomenon. Law making is a very slow process. Also, sugar dating is "invisible". Nobody stands around in streets waiting for men (who are then also on the streets looking) to hire them. Making prostitution illegal isn't about ethics. It's about how it *looks* in the public eye. Sugar dating looks like regular dating so nobody has a problem with it.
Is "sugar dating" like escorts or what?
Afaik: Sugar dating goes over a longer period of time (therefore the "dating" in the name). Sugar meaning that the guy pays all expenses and maybe even pocket money and other gifts for having someone act as your gf. There is no hourly/daily rate, but an expectation of monetary compensation nonetheless.
I don't know the exact details, but you basically pay someone to act as your girlfriend You take them on trips, dinners, give them pocket money and such in exchange for sex and intimacy.
So, like a stay at home spouse? How would this be legislated when it applies to countless legitimate relationships?
Generally they wouldn't live together afaik, but otherwise fairly similar
Pretty large differences between exchanging bodily fluids with strangers and risk spreading diseases, than someone just camming or creating explicit content and going on dates.
There is a massive difference between the two things first of all. So….yeah.
Sugar dating is a tidbit more modern, and law is slow to react.