"SeekingArrangement is the dark side of capitalism" Seeking Arrangement

From the outset, I should confess that it was very difficult to write this article. Having gone through the website seekingarrangement.com to gain some background knowledge, I found myself so appalled that I sat speechless in front of my laptop. Rarely do I have moments when I despair for modern society, but this was certainly one of them.

Upon opening SeekingArrange-ment, I was greeted with the simple tagline “Relationships on Your Terms”, as if romantic and personal relationships are some sort of business deal where it would be helpful to have solicitors present. I then clicked on the “Sugar Daddy” tab, where a series of wonderfully helpful graphics appeared. “A Sugar Daddy is someone who comes with a variety of financial commitments including: family…” (who would have guessed?). “Sugar babies are an expense that must be accounted for” and “Sugar Daddies are all about business”.

The definitions for Sugar Babies were no better: “The Sugar Baby is an individual seeking mentorship, financial support”. The site also helpfully points out that a large portion of Sugar Babies are in university, “aiming to graduate debt free”. It also warns Sugar Babies that revealing a Sugar Daddy could be harmful to the Sugar Daddy’s “career or personal life”. Again, useful, if totally obvious, advice.

I hope I am not alone in rejecting this commodified, thoroughly selfish view of relationships as one that is both utterly vile and has no place in our modern, equal(ish) society. The feminist critique is an obvious one: the fact that the vast majority of Sugar Daddies are men and the dependent Sugar Babies are women demonstrates that a site like this encourages ideas of female dependency on the financial prowess of her male protector.

The very words ‘Sugar Baby’ conjure up images of a dumb gold digger, a stereotype we should rightly extirpate from our discourse. Similarly, they evoke Sugar Daddy images of the 1950s à la Don Draper, whose feminist sensibilities were non-existent.

However, I think this critique, while obvious to anyone with half a brain, misses the wider point – namely the fact that society wants to replace real human connection with artifice and façade. The idea that you can ‘buy’ a personal dinner or private retreat with someone, even without the sexual component, should immediately strike us as suspect. The fact that there are people who actively try to create relationships through prior agreements and reciprocal benefit should be immediately concerning. I am sure many of us would call any relationship built purely on some sort of material reward a sham, but now we can find one online instantly.

This equation of personal relationship with business deal seems to be a natural outgrowth of our selfie culture, a culture where it is easier to excoriate someone online than it is to confront them directly, where it is easier to hook up regularly while drunk than it is to seriously commit to loving another person for longer than 24 hours. This is a culture in which it is easy to buy a night of good conversation with a beautiful woman but infinitely harder to ask someone out on a date.

I rarely say this, being a free-market Tory, but I believe that SeekingArrangement is the dark side of capitalism, and liberalism generally. Those two -isms have undoubtedly given succour to millions and rights to many, but they have also deprived us of any ability to actively discuss values in the public sphere.

We are told that this is a matter of choice, that it really is of no concern to anyone else. Excuse me for being a prude, but I think it is rather obvious that we do not construct our society in a moral and ethical vacuum. Why should we accept as a fait accompli a community where relationships are devoid of any meaningful connection? Why can’t I call the practice of buying sexual services for money depraved, and one that we should aim to eradicate? When we accept the idea that relationships can be bought and sold, and subsequently commodified, we are accepting a society where emotional bonds gradually get broken down and replaced by pure self-interest.

Finally, to those (including a friend of mine who writes for Varsity), who argue that the Sugar Baby phenomenon is really an indictment of high tuition fees and marketisation: you are missing the point entirely. Undoubtedly, many are feeling the squeeze of high tuition fees, but that should never excuse exploitative and selfish behaviour. Indeed, as one of the women in last week’s Varsity investigation put it, it’s an “easy and convenient way to support myself” – as if getting a real job or taking out a loan aren’t acceptable alternatives. I object to the fact that some choose the easy path over the right one. I believe, in the long run, our society will bear the costs – in ephemeral, vacuous relationships that will have as much meaning as the Snapchats we send every few minutes.