Seeking Arrangement.com is a straight-up business transaction site matching up ‘‘sugar daddies'' and ‘‘sugar babies.'' Of the 300,000 or so site members, about a quarter of the "daddies" are seeking men, and while there are a number of older "sugar mommies," and a range of "baby" ages, it's generally about the traditional older rich, often-married guy/hot young girl dynamic. And, as one dude says, it's "the best fishing hole I ever fished in" - with ten potential mistresses to every benefactor. For one thing, women register for free, while guys pay $44.95 a month - "and an optional $5 to ensure the site's name doesn't show up on credit-card statements. For another $1,200 a year, a sugar daddy can become a Diamond Club member, with his income and net worth verified and his profile featured at the top of the home page."

As in all such cases, after the initial distaste, one can't make any assumptions about the relationships. Transactions range from straight-up sex-and-allowance to one guy who, anonymously, just wanted to help his "sugar baby" with her tuition - in return for her keeping her grades up. Another gives his mistress money to visit her boyfriend. While some of the women want to be "spoiled" and showered with Fendi, others are strict pragmatists who take cleaning jobs on the side. Some women consider it prostitution, others hate the idea and tout their love connections. Ads range from gross to poignant, nakedly acquisitive ("immediate financial assistance needed") to kittenish and coy. As one might expect, the range of dynamics is just as broad: some couples say theirs are real emotional connections; others that it's just for money or sex. Says one "sugar baby,"

‘He pays for it, takes me shopping, we talk, laugh, go out to eat and do whatever we want to do for our days together. . . . I don't bring up mundane problems about my home life, and he does the same. . . . If I wanted someone to talk to about my life problems, I'd get a boyfriend or a therapist.''

The piece makes the obvious point that A) these relationships are as old as time and B) the internet makes them more transparent, is all. The bigger question the piece begs is, why are we so fixated on this kind of thing? Last month, Salon ran a smart article in which Rebecca Traister suggested that our - and especially the Media's - fixation on this kind of traditional, unattractive dynamic is a source of perverse comfort in uncertain times. Pepsi brings back a retro logo to give us the warm and fuzzies; the papers bring back old-school mistresses.

And of course, it's legitimately infuriating: why are we being forced to read about this tiny segment of the population at a time when women, in fact, are especially prominent in the Recession-era workforce? Why instead do we hear over and over about those looking for free rides and clinging like limpets to rich men instead of to jobs like everyone we actually know? This, to women, is offensive and sad. And maybe there's schadenfreude: obviously when the cultural We feels down, it's comforting to play Church Lady and judge: do what you want, we sniff; some of us support ourselves without selling ourselves - although that's your prerogative.

But is that all? I mean, the level of coverage is getting crazy, from our slavering over virginity-vendors to the Times breathless coverage of seemingly every oldest-profession transaction out there. Is there, somewhere, some cultural wistfulness, cloaked in judgment? As the article points out, the Internet takes all this stuff public - and in a way, takes some of the mystery out of it. It doesn't really feel all that different, in a way, from setting up any dating profile - not like the distant world of street corner prostitution and madams, which bore no resemblance to our lives. Ironically, as these stories feed our outrage, they desensitize us to the dynamic. The lurid escapism of such stories also contain a grain of "happily-ever-after" unlikely love - and there's a reason Pretty Woman, objectively predicated on a kind of horrifying premise, was a monster hit. I know I click on every one of these stories, even though they're always the same, and always depressing. What are we looking for, here? Comfort? Judgment? Escapism? Romance? Or just a little "There But For the Grace of God Go I," in these perilous times. You know what? No.

Keeping Up with Being Kept [New York Times - not online]

Earlier: Recession Casualty: Female Solidarity?

In the clip at left, Melanie explains that when one goes on a website that matches young women with older wealthy men, the first thing the guys ask is "what are your goals and your dreams" because "they're not just going to give you all this money to go shopping ... they want you to actually do something and achieve something and do something good." She then proceeds to show off her new Manolos.

According to GMA, the sugar daddy "phenomenon" has exploded recently, as evidenced by the existence of these websites, the Real Housewives shows, and Anna Nicole Smith marrying that billionaire... in 1994. But these aren't your mother's sugar daddies. The man who runs SeekingArrangement.com says while we usually think of "a guy with a gold chain and a furry chest, a sugar daddy today could be the guy in the Starbucks waiting line."

But alas! The internet was "negative" and "judgmental" about the "mutually beneficial" agreement that nets her about $5,000 a month. She is back today with quotes from her sugar daddy in a misguided effort to set the record straight. The main thing she wants you to know is that she's not a hooker. She and her sugar daddy are just regular boyfriend and girlfriend. Their relationship is wholesome, you see. Her "sugar daddy" plays golf with her actual daddy, who of course doesn't know the financial agreement the SD has with his daughter. And there's more:

Q: So the majority of bloggers felt that our relationship was prostitution, with me as the prostitute and you as the john, mainly because of the financial aspect of our relationship. What would you say to them?
A: Well, I would say that I think of our relationship as pretty much a marriage. Just like a husband provides for his wife, I provide for you. I'm lucky enough to be able to financially give you anything you could want, and if people resent that then that's too bad for them. I think the biggest misconception with some of the readers was that we aren't monogamous. Neither of us have any other kind of relationship, whether emotional or sexual, with anyone else.

Well, Ms. "Beech", no one "resents" the fact that you're financially blessed any more than they resent any other rich person. The upswelling of negativity was because of the heinous, braggy attitude you had about the whole sordid thing. In this piece, you say your lifestyle should be the "envy of any young woman who enjoys life." And in your last screed, you bragged at length and in great detail about your lux life. Remember?

I rent a $1,600 apartment in the city, for which he pays the rent in full. I carry an AmEx Black card in both our names, and use it for things like shopping, spa trips, manicures, and tanning; the bill goes to him. And the company car I drive costs him around $700 a month for the lease and the insurance. I’ve even managed to build up a little nest egg over the past year—at his insistence—putting away around $12,000. All in all, he probably spends in the ballpark of $5,000 a month on my lifestyle…We went to London and Paris last spring, where we saw the sights and shopped at stores like Chanel and Dior. How many other college students are wearing Christian Louboutins to class?

I'm not going to get into the moral dubiousness of your proposition, or how narcissistic it is to assume that everyone wants to emulate your existence. Whether or not you're a prostitute is actually irrelevant when you consider your gross public materialism. (You even mentioned that the "job market was sliding into decline" in your first essay, so obviously, you know we're in a recession.) To boast about the egregious sums of money being spent on your grooming, wardrobe and upkeep is gross to the extreme in this kind of economic climate; I don't care who's paying for it.

The Sugar Daddy Replies [Daily Beast]
My Sugar Daddy [Daily Beast]

Earlier: Sugar Daddies: Easier Than Work-Study For College Students

"Melissa Beech" is a college student from a privileged background. "I was blessed to have been raised with class, sent to the best schools, and taught to be well read, well spoken and well traveled." Yet the world of higher learning proves a rude awakening!

But when I got to college, I spent the first two years straining for financial independence. I tried working, but in retail, surrounded by temptation all day, I spent more than I made. Waiting tables was exhausting. I went on several job interviews, but all of the internships were unpaid. As my years in college wore on it was evident that the job market was sliding into decline. When the economic climate grew worse, my friends panicked that their resumes and high GPAs wouldn’t be enough to give them a leg up on the competition, and my goal became getting my foot in the door before everyone else.

What's a girl to do? She goes on an interview and the guy - "in his early thirties, single and successful" -offers her a job as his mistress instead. Turns out the dude's in this businesslike world of mistresses and sugar-daddies where, as in 18th century London, these arrangements are understood.

There’s even a social networking website that connects sugar daddies and their beneficiaries. This man told me about it: SeekingArrangement.com. He had been referred to it by a close friend who was a hedge fund manager. At his urging, I logged onto the site and looked at his profile. It didn’t have a picture, for privacy reasons. But it did contain information: his marital status (single), the industry he worked in (media and communications), and—a key element—his salary (seven figures). I was encouraged by the fact that the website vets its clients and offers only Certified Sugar Daddies, whose tax returns have been carefully examined so you know that you’re getting. I also learned that he was attracted to bright, smart women—he wasn’t in the market for the dumb bombshell. His profile said he wanted more of “a Jackie Kennedy than a Marilyn Monroe.” I fit the type.

Basically, she'll be his girlfriend, and he'll support her. She asks that they wait to get to know each other before sleeping together; he accedes.

As for the allowance, he doesn’t just cut me a check. He simply ensures that I need never worry about expenses. I rent a $1,600 apartment in the city, for which he pays the rent in full. I carry an AmEx Black card in both our names, and use it for things like shopping, spa trips, manicures, and tanning; the bill goes to him. And the company car I drive costs him around $700 a month for the lease and the insurance. I’ve even managed to build up a little nest egg over the past year – at his insistence – putting away around $12,000. All in all, he probably spends in the ballpark of $5,000 a month on my lifestyle.

It seems hard to believe that this scenario could actually inspire moral outrage, even from those who consider it to be prostitution: neither party is married, and the arrangement is, as she says, mutually beneficial. (And if she and her benefactor are suffering from the now-official recession — as many mistresses apparently are — she gives no indication.) More than anything, it seems odd and unsatisfying — a bloodless compromise between a relationship and a business transaction. But whatever one thinks about her choices, her justifications ring false to any young woman who's been strapped for cash in college - which is to say, most of us. Retail tempted her? Waitressing exhausted her? Please. These easy rationales lose her a lot of sympathy pretty quickly. And her defensive claims that although "he didn’t hire me for the internship position, but because of him I have had several internships at well-known PR companies, and have plenty of networking opportunities, shoring up my future prospects for when I graduate this spring" don't win much sympathy, either. If this was all some plan to bolster her resume, it seems like there are more direct ways - and this can't bring much comfort to the qualified young women who failed to obtain the same jobs because, while they may have been restrained enough to work a retail job, they didn't have the prescience to nab a sugar daddy. If she wants to be some emotionally disconnected rich guy's mistress, it's her prerogative - it's not like couples haven't been doing this for centuries - but attempting to justify it on professional grounds is an insult to the rest of us.

My Sugar Daddy [Daily Beast]

Earlier: Girly Golddiggers Are Reeling From The Recession

The money/beauty tradeoff is nothing new — the thing is, there are just as many lovely women, apparently vying for an ever-shrinking number of big spenders. "There's much more competition,'" says one self-described golddigger. Adds another: "'When we go out there are usually four guys buying us drinks. Now there is only one...Guys just aren't going out as much. Plus, men aren't buying bottle service so there are no tables to invite women back to.'" Ted Morgan, co-author of How to Marry a Multi-Millionaire: The Ultimate Guide to High Net Worth Dating, says, rather distastefully, "There is an increased sense of desperation among women about dating, and men can sense this." As to less permanent relationships, a piece in today's Telegraph says that wealthy men are cutting back on mistress-associated costs, too: "More than three-quarters of the adulterous multi-millionaire men surveyed said they planned to spend less money on gifts and treats for their lovers, and 82 per cent planned to cut their regular payments."

Of course, it goes both ways: "Will I knowingly date somebody who is in the sh—ter right now? Probably not," says "Sammy." Basically, it's a straightforward barter system and everyone needs to pull his weight. What's weird is that none of the women seem prepared to rearrange their social lives: they'd rather vie with more competition at the same pricey bars each weekend than maybe take up a hobby or date the way the rest of us do. The thing is, all the women quoted in the piece are employed — real estate brokers, models, even women who themselves work in finance. And yet the goal of marrying — or at least dating — up seems so entrenched that even as they're fully pragmatically aware of the situation, they can't break out of it. If that's a dream to someone, it's depressing enough — finding everlasting love with a Mr. Big who — whoops! — also happens to be a gazillionaire is unlikely. But the pragmatism is more dismaying still. If there's an upside to this financial devastation, hopefully it's that some people will be forced to reevaluate, get lives that have nothing to do with Carrie Bradshaw and, maybe, be the happier for it.

Desperately Seeking Sugar Daddies [Page Six Magazine]
Wealthy men cut gifts to mistresses during financial crisis [Telegraph]

Marry For Money? No Thanks Says Women [Daily Mail via ThisIsMoney.co.uk]