A better name? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Hi The Drover's Wife. Content was removed in these edits. There are sourcs for all of that. Plus, the prostitution part does make sense. Please, let's restore it with sources, okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[]

It was removed because it was wrong: just because an article focused on sugaring in a college context does not mean that sugaring as a concept is. The "average" is from one article, not cited to who made that claim, and pretty hilariously misinformed. Both parties consent to the arrangement in prostitution as well, which is why I removed it: it makes absolutely no sense; not to mention that (as many sources discuss) the lines between sugaring and prostitution are relatively blurred, and people may well be both. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Hmmmmmmmm...........good points! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[]

It's a bit of an orphan. Could you suggest some places it could go? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[]

SeekingArrangement has its own article, a summary style breakout of Mistress, the template that is already on the article, and there are probably a few sex work templates/articles it belongs in too. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Ah, thanks for that. I'll see what I can do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[]

This is just not true. 44% does not equal "absolutely all" just because you found a few HuffPo trend pieces focused on the student angle. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Fair enough. You'll have to forgive my poor article construction. I'm terribly distracted off-wiki. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[]

These articles can be in fact merged into one. The compensated dating page focuses more on its implications on the Japanese society. --Appleuseryu (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[]

They're in different cultural contexts, so if you want to tie them together in one article (or to discuss similarities) you should find a source discussing that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[]

I've cross-linked this article with Enjo kōsai through their See also sections, since this was a better target than anything I could find for Sugar Daddy, which is an older term, I think. There may be an opportunity to expand this article with some historical background and link it through references with comparable practices elsewhere. Note that the Enjo kōsai#United States is under a heading of "Spread to other countries", which is a dubious claim. They're linked because of certain similarities, but demonstrating cultural diffusion would need more support.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[]

Something ought to be made explicit in the article: put "sugar baby" "call girl" into any search engine. An interesting exchange —

"Girls doing what your girls did are known by many names: escort, prostitute, call girl, courtesan, sugar baby, hooker. What’s the distinction?"

"…they come with different rates and expectations…. However, at the end of the day, when it’s all said and done, we all played all roles. We saw the same guys. We went through similar internal struggles. Our buyers — johns, clients, customers, tricks and sugar daddies — were equally alike."

(https://lasvegassun.com/vegasdeluxe/2015/sep/23/las-vegas-madam-spills-call-girl-secrets-olympian/)

I think it's disingenuous (at best!) to continue trying to draw a line between a person in a romantic relationship who receives cash, gifts or other benefits in exchange for being in the relationship and the practice of engaging in sexual activity in exchange for payment either as money, goods, services, or some other benefit agreed upon by the transacting parties. The only possible distinguishing characteristic is the undefined word "romantic," but it makes no difference: having sex with a callgirl is after all generally romanticized in Western culture, therefore "romantic," right?

I have nothing against sex workers, and in fact support their rights to organize for recognition. However, the fact must be faced that a whore with one client is still a whore.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Were you thinking "euphemistic bias"?

Some people want to summarily lump all of these categories together on a moral basis, but there are meaningful distinctions, both in the character of the transactions and in the degree of social acceptance. It's not surprising that some sex workers would prefer to use newer terms or terms that carry less social opprobrium, but we should not necessarily take this smearing together as dissolving all differences. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/basis

By which I meant that the "article" is multiple layers of lowbrow nonsense, placed here in a smarmy noncritical whitewash with no balancing doubts, and likely thereafter used to further promote the cutesified "sugaring" habits. These aren't matchmaking sites intended to create long-term relationships much less marriage, so are hookup sites with the additional expectation that cash or other "gifts" will be given, therefore prostitution. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a lifestyle or an industry.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Whilst WP is not a place to promote a lifestyle or an industry, equally it's not a place to make moralistic judgements or preach either. John B123 (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Agreed — the article is indeed preaching (i.e., glorifying a particular viewpoint) and built from a whole slough of moral judgments (e.g., that "sugaring isn't really prostitution" and actually sorta cute). Perhaps you're correct and outright deletion is called for. I'll consider the nomination.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Sounds like an advertisement. Should specific sites be mentioned at all? Reads like a slang dictionary entry. Needs proof of percentages. Rozzychan (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[]

Agreed: WP:NOTDIRECTORY among other reasons. Mostly removed.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[]

This page is fringe POV gaslighting, attempting to take commonly understood terms with fixed stable meanings, and not only impose on them the re-definitions used by a particular subculture, but also pretend that it was always thus, erasing the older (and actually uncontested, completely standard) meanings.

All dictionary definitions of "sugar daddy" and derivative phrases contradict the inventions in the lead. As do the other paragraphs of the article.

A second problem is that WP:COMMON requires that the article on this subject, if there is to be one, be under the massively more frequent term "sugar daddy". "Sugar baby" gets much less use, and "sugaring", which is treated here as some sort of known and primary concept, is extremely uncommon. Search engine hits for the latter are mostly for methods of hair removal or food preparation. Which is another indicator of the gaslighting. COMMENCE DELETION. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[]

👁 Image
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SophieVMoon, Gf6f3, MichalyLong (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Aysiagrey, Elawson123, Karleeseek, Bem2c4, MNC-2016, Elaineamery, Kailynhill721, Lilurkel44.

— Assignment last updated by MNC-2016 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[]

Loved your feedback and though it was pretty beneficial when it came to needing to discuss a few more details in exactly what sugaring outside of the basic student perspective in which the authors wrote it as. MichalyLong (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[]

We love the entire set up about the article. However, feel as though we would want to change the tittle of the page from "Sugar baby" to "Transactional dating". We feel as though this is essential because most of the article speaks on what sugar dating is and refers it all back to sugar baby, sugar mom or sugar daddy terms. By changing the article it will allow us to add more information instead of just broad details of what sugar babies are or do. MichalyLong (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[]

Please start a requested move discussion so other editors can add their opinion. See WP:PCM. --John B123 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[]

A sugar daddy and sugar baby relationship NOT transactional. If there is a specific transactional fee for sex or companionship then that is prostitution. A sugar daddy is usually an older successful man in an ongoing relationship with a younger woman who enjoys spoiling his companion in different ways. This is no different than a woman dating a successful man that is close to her age and impresses her with fancy gifts or frequent trips around the world. The only difference would be the age difference. This is not to be confused with prostitution in which the woman is looking for a payment of some kind. 2600:1700:D400:18C0:D441:FA2A:365C:9B15 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[]

Sugar dating most definitely is transactional, even if it doesn't necessarily involve direct payment for sex. In general, sex and companionship work exist on a spectrum from dating in exchange for gifts to outright prostitution, and there's no bright line between the two, much the same way as there's no bright line between modeling and performing in porn. Even in the case of outright escorting, some clients may be paying for basically emotional support and the encounter might not be sexual, though it usually is. Individual sugar babies may draw the line at providing sex, but that's not universal. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sugar Mama which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[]

This article suffers from a bad case of WP:RECENTISM and lack of global perspective, only viewing sugar dating in the context of current culture, with no historical or cross-cultural overview. The terms "sugar baby" and "sugar daddy" are 100 years old now and the phenomenon goes back even longer. The origin of the term, which dates back to the Dot King scandal in 1923 should be covered, as well as the popularization of the term "sugar daddy" and "sugar baby" and who it's been applied to. How it relates to the historical practice of courtesanship and cross-cultural practices like enjo kōsai should be covered as well. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[]

A popular claim is that the term was started as a pet name that Alma de Bretteville Spreckels used for her older sugar millionaire paramour and later husband, Adolph B. Spreckels. However, their romance dates back to the 1900s and the term doesn't appear on the scene until the 1920 and the story about Spreckels using it dates back only to a 2007 blog post, popularized by a 2009 San Francisco Chronicle story. (Notably, there's nothing about any "sugar daddy" in Alma Spreckels 1990 biography, Big Alma.) Per this blog:https://www.worldwidewords.org/qa-sug2.html, that story is probably a modern piece of internet-driven lore.

The actual origin is the scandal around the 1923 murder of Dot King, a New York flapper and chorus girl. Suspicion fell on her rich boyfriend and patron, who her love letters referred to as a "heavy sugar daddy". Newspapers of the time had a field day with the story, introducing the terms "sugar baby" and "sugar daddy", the use of which grew exponentially afterward. Candies by the same name were introduced in the mid-1920s. Probably not coincidentally, the term "gold digger" had been introduced only a few years prior. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[]

I have serious doubts about that. Dot King was killed 15 March 1923. The Cleveland Press clipping 'The Dictionary of Broadway' {File:The Dictionary of Broadway.jpg) published on 27 March 1923 gives 'Heavy Sugar Baby' as one of the terms that have come to light during the investigation of King's death. That suggests the term, and other related terms, were already in use prior to her death.

Searching the internet gives various origins and dates for the term. IMHO the article as it stands gives undue weight to Quinion's opinion. I'm also not sure worldwidewords.org can be considered a reliable source as its self-published by Quinion. --John B123 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[]

The 1923 publicity around Dot King's death represents the event when that term first made its way into the press (hence the phrasing "earliest popular use"), which is obviously not quite going to be the exact time of first usage. Obviously, its use within a particular subculture is going to go back a little further. But for linguistic origins, when a word or phrase first appears in print is all we have to go on. And if you do a search for the term on sources like Newspapers.com or Google Books, you simply don't see any usage of the term prior to 1923. On the other hand, the terms go viral after that point. So, yes, it seems that Quinion has called it right.

I also have to object in the strongest terms to the source-lawyering around Quinion's "self-published" World Wide Words. Michael Quinion is a highly-regarded etymologist and has clearly done more in-depth research here than random newspaper reporters who have simply repeated what they came across in earlier versions of Wikipedia in an endless round of circular reporting. Which is so far how this subject in earlier versions of this article have been sourced.

What is the alternate theory here? That Alma Spreckels originated the term? Can you find any source for that claim earlier than from the 2007-2009 range? It is worth restating that no mention of "sugar daddy" in any context is present in Bernice Scharlach's 1990 biography of Alma Spreckels, nor can it be found any earlier source. Quinion's statement that there are no historical sources for that claim absolutely checks out. Peter G Werner (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[]

The goalposts seem to have changed here. We have gone from Origin of terms "sugar daddy" and "sugar baby" to earliest popular use. Whilst Quinion may be highly respected, he is not god and his website worldwidewords.org fails WP:RS on the grounds of WP:UGC.

The origins of the terms 'sugar daddy/sugar baby' are unclear and there are various different theories of the origin. What I am suggesting is that the various hypotheses are given equal weight rather than Quinion is right and everybody else is wrong as the article currently reads. --John B123 (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[]

There's no shift in goalpost here. "Earliest popular use" is literally what I had written at the time that you commented. And I think you are making kind of a tendentious point here. Words and phrases very often predate their first appearance in print! In the case of "sugar daddy", it was clearly in use in a New York City subculture before appearing in print in 1923. That's why this event should get credit for popularizing the term.

As to sources, if you really want to split hairs about Michael Quinion's site being "self-published", I'll also point to the fact that another source that I've given, Thomas H. Keels (2010), Wicked Philadelphia. (ISBN 9781596297876), a non-self-published book, also credits the popularization of this term to that event. And as to the "Michael Quinion is not God" comment, well, I'm not saying that he is, but again, who are your alternative authors who have addressed this question? Because I'm not seeing any other established etymologist or historian who has weighed in on the question of the origin of "sugar daddy", and believe me, I've looked. If there were, I'd discuss their work in the article. If you have other sources, by all means, name them here or add them directly, but I expect you to hold your sources to the same standard as you've held mine. There are lots of internet "sources" that discuss the origin of this term, and the overwhelming majority are low-quality ones.

I would also like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Self-published doesn't mean bad, because it raises some important points. I'll point out that, contrary to some editors' misconceptions, there is no blanket prohibition on the use of self-published sources. It's simply that there are precautions about using them, and for good reason. But too many editors simply assess sources as a manner of rote: academic < newspapers < self-published sources, full stop. And, too often, that means weighting the a fifth-rate low-impact academic journal article or random newspaper columnist over the blog of a subject-matter expert. That's an exceedingly poor practice for evaluating reliable sources, in my estimation.

I also want to draw attention again to the question of Alma Spreckels as the supposed originator of the term, because that gets to Wikipedia's role in amplifying this claim and how it's basically a case of Wikipedia citogenesis. The earliest work claiming that Alma Spreckels used "sugar daddy" as a pet name for Adolph Spreckels is a 2007 blog post by Joseph Potocki that was cited in the earliest version of the Alma de Bretteville Spreckels article and remained there for many years. (That blog post is unarchived, but a later version is archived here.) That source is, guess what, a self-published blog post, and one with no sourcing whatsoever, unlike the Quinion article that you've been so critical of, which at least does name its sources. That poorly-sourced factoid was then amplified by other sites because of its long presence on Wikipedia. And now I'm being told that I should respect that questionable historical claim because there are "lots of sources on the internet" reporting it!

And getting back to the question of reliable sources, I want to point, once again, to the fact that the definitive WP:SECONDARY biographical source on Alma Spreckels is Bernice Scharlach's 1990 book Big Alma, which has no mention at all of Adolph Spreckels being called a "sugar daddy" or Alma using it! Nor does it seem to be present in any source from before the 2000s. Contrast that with the connection between that term and the Dot King scandal, for which I can find numerous sources, from the the 1920s, through the 20th century, clear up to contemporary sources. That weighs pretty strongly, in my estimation.

Again, if there are other reliable sources out there, I'd be happy to work that into the article. But right now you're weighing Quinion against some totally unnamed others who I'm told that I should be taking into account. As of now, I've written the best version that I can given my survey of reliable sources that I've found. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[]

The title of this discussion, started by yourself, is Origin of terms "sugar daddy" and "sugar baby" and the second paragraph of your initial post states The actual origin is the scandal around the 1923 murder of Dot King. That is totally different to Earliest popular use, hence my comment of moving goalposts.

I don't dispute Quinion is a respected academic, but academics often disagree and the opinions of one academic is not definitive. Writing the article to reflect Quinion's opinions when others disagree is not neutral and places undue weight on Quinion's viewpoint. --John B123 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[]

I will look at the language I've used in the article text and see if it's unclear. There is no "shifting goalpost", and I think you're really flogging a dead horse about its first appearance in print being different from first usage. Literally any article on word origin is going to cite its first appearance in print or other media source! But it's highly doubtful it's usage goes back decades before 1923, either.

As for the rest, I really think I've addressed you're point! You keep bringing up academics who disagree with Quinion, then not naming them. Please do, because when I was putting this section together, I looked for academic sources and I really couldn't locate any after numerous searches of Google Scholar. Quinion was the one high-quality scholarly source I could find, plus Keels' Wicked Philadelphia as a published source. And scoured Scharlach's book for any support for claims made about the Alma Spreckels connection. It's not like there are sources I'm holding out on - if you know of something else, I'm all ears. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[]

The term is mentioned in Sugar dating #History and etymology / 4th. para / 2nd image (of this section): text under the photo of "Dorothy "Dot" King".

Problem: This term/usage/meaning is NOT defined in this wikipedia, but it SHOULD be defined in this wp; if it is used in this wp, it should be defined in this wp!

The meaning is given in the next image Sugar dating #History and etymology / (3rd image) "The Dictionary of Broadway". I already added a link to this photo, but this mention shouldn't be the only mention.

It should also be listed in Butterfly (disambiguation) #Other uses. I had added this meaning to Butterfly (disambiguation) #Other uses, but minutes later it was already deleted. See talk over there: Talk:Butterfly (disambiguation) #A girl who lives the night life of cabarets; there also is a link to the diff. of the deletion. Maybe someone would like to [ interfere with / contradict to ] this deletion. Steue -- 2A02:3100:6679:F200:D9D3:D690:50CC:D9E2 (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[]