SeekingArrangements is a platform to find a sugar baby or sugar daddy. What is sugar baby/daddy, you asked? You are lucky to not know the definition but you are now unlucky because I will tell you what it is 😂
A sugar baby is typically a woman who provides companionship to a man called a sugar daddy and in return, the sugar daddy will give material things to the sugar baby (it can be anything like money or items).
So in this article, SeekingArrangements (to be known as SA in this writing) are spreading a message that you don't have to justify your sugar relationship. This message is written to emphasize what they have been campaigning so far, normalizing the sugar relationship.
I don't want to talk about my opinion on the sugar relationship, so in this article, I just want to review the blog, its content, and its writing as a fellow blogger 😁
Firstly, let's talk about the title: "You Don’t Need to Justify Your Sugar Relationship"
So from the title, we know that this article is supposed to tell us that we don't have to justify the sugar relationship, pretty straightforward, good direction, in-line with their belief. The problem is that most of the content in this article is trying to tell you how to justify your sugar relationship, which is something they said you don't need to do. You'll see this as we go along.
Now let's go to the first paragraph.
It's just a simple introduction explaining the background of some people's decision to be in a sugar relationship, kinda familiarising readers with the lifestyle they are getting to know about. Nothing wrong with that. So far so good. But the problem started to be seen in the last sentence of this paragraph, which says "Or you are married but unhappy – what then?" and then in the next paragraph, they are answering this question by saying "Alternative dating is an option."
In my opinion, this is a very broad statement. Yes, that is an option, but so does leaving your marriage, running away from the problem, or getting a divorce. Literally, everything is an option. So why are you mentioning this option? What is the connection of this option with the fact many people are unhappy in their marriage? Instead of just giving a bland and meaningless statement saying this is an option, the writer should say that "amongst many options for men to cope with an unhappy marriage, many are keener towards having a sugar relationship due to the fact that it can fulfill what they are missing in their marriage with a resource that they already have, money, instead of giving resources they don't have, which is commitment and emotional maturity to fix unhappiness." That's more honest, more direct, and it explains well why a sugar lifestyle is a popular option because they are the company that promotes this, so they should say that our service is a popular one.
And then in the 2nd paragraph, they said "Sugar relationships provide a framework for a type of relationship that is “outside the box.” But that’s ok. Differences are what make the world go ‘round. ", these three sentences really don't mean anything and so random, it's like appearing out of nowhere.
First of all, why is “outside the box.” is in quotation marks, and what do you mean by that? It's pretty ambiguous and non-direct. Instead of saying funny terms like this, just say unusual or unlike the norm, because that's exactly what you mean. By going around the bush like this, writer sounds like they are trying to not being honest. And usually, people who are not being honest are associated with not doing the right thing.
And then after this sentence, they said "But that's okay.", which is ironic.
If they believe that their lifestyle is right and you don't need to justify it, then why do you say "But that's okay."? This phrase is usually said to contradict a point they made before. It's like saying you did something weird/wrong but that's okay because it doesn't damage anything. Again, if you believe you're right and you don't need to justify it, then you don't have to point out how unusual your lifestyle is and then contradict it. What the writer said in this statement can be translated into: "sugar relationships are unlike the norm, it's true, but it's okay because we are different and different is good."
Does that sound like a justification? To me, it is. In my opinion, these 3 sentences should not be there in the first place. Now we are moving slightly towards the "this is how you should justify" direction.
Justification is usually provided with a reason. So to say that it's okay because... (although they didn't explicitly write like that), then that is a justification. Here's an example of what justification typically looks like.
"I do this because my instinct tells me to"
"I made this because my parents wanted this"
"I'm sorry but that person forced me to say that to you"
Now you know what justification looks like, you'll understand better why I spotted so many justification suggestions for this article that tells people to not justify 🤷♀️
The next paragraph is defining the role of SB and SD. Which, again, justification spotted.
It begins by saying "SDs provide more than just a financial incentive; they can also mentor their SBs, open doors to areas the SB would never likely get through otherwise, or simply provide companionship when needed."
What this saying is sugar daddy is not like what you think it is because they don't just give money, they also do a, b, c, etc.
I don't know why they wanted to tell people that SDs do more than just giving money if they believe that they don't need to justify SDs giving money in this relationship. I mean, they should approach this by saying yes, the fact is that SDs give money in the relationship, end of the story. Telling people that "hey, that's not entirely true because they do more than that" is a big sign that you are trying to make SDs, who pay women to be their companions, is actually right. And if you are trying to tell people that this is actually right, that's called...justification.
Also, can we take a moment to realize how generic the SDs justifications are?
Like, literally everyone in your life can be your mentor, open doors to areas you'd never likely get through, and provide companionship.
Your teacher, seniors at work, parents, employer, friends, even strangers you randomly talk to can be a mentor in your life.
Any experience you have never experienced like promoted at your job, or eating new food, or moving to a different city, or traveling to a different place, is opening a door to areas.
Your parents, friends, boy/girlfriend, husband/wife, can provide companionship. Heck, even your dog provides companionship as well.
So it's really weird how they are trying to justify when they tell you don't justify but the justification they provided is not really justifying because it's super generic.
If the writer really wanted to say that the SDs are more than the financial providers, then they should at least say what SD's role can achieve that nobody else has.
But I gotta appreciate how they are don't justify when they talked about SBs' role.
"SBs provide the emotional and physical companionship that the SDs need at that time."
Finally, a message that goes along the direction.
*But I do have a personal opinion on this statement (unrelated to their writing style). If you have to pay someone to accompany you, does that count as emotional companionship at all? Shouldn't that be just physical companionship? I mean emotional companionship means someone accompanies you emotionally regardless of the situation. For example, parents emotionally accompany their children, they care about the children all the time and think about them a lot, they always are there when the children need them. If you need to pay someone to come and comfort you, and they won't do it if you don't pay them, that counts as just physical companionship, right?
Oh boy, this is gonna be a long post, we got more paragraphs. 😭
In the 4th paragraph, they are comparing sugar babies as being prostitutes and saying that it isn't the truth because of some justification. But they are really justifying with a bad comparison, which is funny. Prostitution also have both consenting adults with very specific parameters of what the relationship entails. I never actually go to prostitution but I have asked people and typically prostitution has the women being offered or offering a service detailing what they will do, later on, they then agreed on the payment, and then only they do the work.
So, in a way, they are saying it's not the same but then later on proving that it's the same.
The next paragraph is a whole paragraph justifying why it's OK for women to be SBs because the whole paragraph is a bunch of reasons to justify the earlier statement that no, SBs are not prostitutes and their occupation not demeaning women.
For an article with a title not to justify the sugar relationship, it does justify the sugar relationship a lot.
*I especially have a personal opinion (that's unrelated to their writing style) on the part "(because let’s face it, men still have a larger earning potential than women)".
I know that in some cultures sexism/gender bias at work really happened and it really affecting the pay gap between men and women. So this statement is such an ignorance of that issue, and, in a way, demeaning women.
And then the next paragraph is, again, justifying men who become SDs by saying they are stuck in an unhappy marriage. They further justify by saying that the sugar relationship can go on for months or years. It is saying that "no, sugar relationship is not some kind of one-off thing because some of them can go on for months" (suggesting that it's just like normal relationships). Again, if you don't want to justify the sugar relationship, just say that yeah sugar relationship, in fact, can be a one-off thing, end of the story.
The only paragraph that really consistent with the direction of this article is this last paragraph!
In my opinion, this should actually be the opening of the article and the writer can elaborate from this.
All I can say is, it's bad. This article is bad. I am not saying this because of my point of view about the sugar lifestyle, I am saying this because the writing is just bad. It's going in to completely the wrong direction but at the same time contradicts itself and filled the article with meaningless generic sentences.
In the end, I am not even sure what their message exactly is.
If I were to write that article (which I won't), I'd go in a direction of the reasons why you don't need to justify being in a sugar relationship, such as other people never justify why they made their life choices, they just did. So why should you? And the part when they said "You owe no one an explanation for what you do." is exactly in the right direction, I'd use that, too. Or maybe I'd add the fact that everyone has the right to pursue happiness so it's your right, you don't have to justify it.
Actually, I am not a very good writer anyways. I just have opinions as a reader.
So yeah, that's all my honest opinion and thoughts about SA's article. What do you think of that article?