"SUGAR DATING" or "sugaring" is the same concept. The idea of exchanging love and companionship between males and females for financial backing is basically 'prostitution', disguising under a much elegant name.
The founder of Asia's most critically-acclaimed Sugar Daddy dating platform, Sugarbook who once said 'if you're not happy with the terms, you can always say no. Nobody is paying you to do the things you don't want to do' is playing naive.
How could he ensure that nobody is abusing the terms, especially when a wealthy, high-ranked man is the sole supporter for an underprivileged girl, vice versa.
Sugaring should be made an offence punishable by law as it poses a great threat to underaged teenagers and college students. Although the act of pleasing well-established men is "purely consensual" due to a binding agreement made before the commission of sugaring, it's the female counterparts who are always on the bad receiving end.
I once mentioned that sugaring creates an 'open season' for sexual offenders and adults carrying STDs who would use the app to prey on innocent girls. There are also numerous cases where adult women were beaten, sexually abused and financially scammed because they put all of their assurance on 'sugar daddies' or 'sugar babies'. All of these body pain and emotional grievances for the price of what? RM2.5K?
Please remember that our Penal Code only prohibits prostitution and soliciting prostitution under Section 372 but not couple-matching services which offer beyond casual sexual relationships between partners.
This is similar to the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998 where providing an online service or application per se is not an offence however allowing inappropriate content can be charged under the said Act. One can only report and make complaints but unable to take them app creators or users behind bars.
Although criminal elements of coercion, force or extortion during sugaring can be penalised, the absence of a specific provision to include 'purchase of intimacy, sugaring, out-of-wed companionship' in Section 372 or 'match-making services' under the Communication and Multimedia Act - means that a service provider like Sugarbook that promotes and enables the commission of above mentioned gestures can easily get away!
To add, the loophole that exists in Section 372B of Penal Code should be properly addressed. It only punishes women who deemed to solicit or importune for the purpose of prostitution but does not incarcerate men who reward their partner for the sexual act. My take is both parties who create room or perform 'sex-work' for self-pleasures should face equal reprehension.
In contrast, 'payment for companionship' is somehow legal. Quite a few may think "ey, but both parties consent?" but don't forget our kids, small nieces and nephews who can't give consent. Especially when they are now fully exposed to the Internet and could simply fake their profiles. Hence, it is the right time for our authorities to put the law in place so it can protect minors in particular from online predators.
I agree with Singapore's Minister for Social and Family Development, Desmond Lee when he attacked Sugarbook with perfect reasonings. He said that such online dating platforms commoditise and devalue relationships under the cover of a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Yes, the high possibility of cohabiting with a married man or woman shows how family relationships can be ruined within the snap of a finger. As a civilised society, we should plant this thought in our brain that 'immorality means unlawful', not otherwise.
In essence, what we see as unethical, wrongful in the precepts of religion, unaccepted in a Constitutional Monarchy country and most importantly, detrimental to the lives of the vulnerable units in the community - be made illegal and thus, be fairly punished under the law.
The writer is Youth & Media Exco, The International Women's Alliance for Family Institution & Quality Education (WAFIQ)