Between Money and Intimacy: The Balance That Sustains a Sugar Relationship

One of the most interesting features of sugar relationships is that they combine two elements that, at first glance, seem to belong to different worlds: intimacy and money. There is an expectation of companionship, attraction, affection, and connection, but also some kind of material benefit. That combination is what sets sugar apart from both a conventional romance and a purely commercial transaction.

A financial dimension is clearly present, yet participants often try to keep it from dominating how the relationship is perceived.

What is relational work?

This tension is at the heart of Avoiding the transactional "feel" while getting paid: Affect and relational work in sugar dating, by Catherine Lavoie Mongrain, published in 2024 in the Canadian Review of Sociology. The author uses Viviana Zelizer's concept of relational work: people set rules about which transactions are appropriate in each type of relationship, and money doesn't have a single meaning. Its meaning depends on the relationship in which it circulates.

In the relationships analyzed, how money is presented can matter as much as the fact that it exists.

The problem with the transactional "feel"

The problem appears when the relationship takes on an overly explicit structure of service, price, and payment. Imagine an arrangement where every date has a set price, a set number of hours, and a payment tied directly to the activities performed. Socially, that model feels far more commercial, and it can clash with the experience of intimacy that characterizes sugar dating.

That's why practices like setting an hourly rate, precisely timing each date, or attaching an amount to a specific act create a different perception from the one associated with a sugar relationship. Sugar tries to present itself as something built on companionship, shared experiences, connection, and mutual benefit, setting itself apart from a purely commercial sexual transaction.

Gifts, allowances, and symbolic distance

To avoid that "feel," participants turn to gifts, allowances, and other forms of material benefit that don't tie a specific activity to a specific payment.

The difference matters. There is a symbolic distance between "you get X for this date" and "I want to take care of you and contribute to your life." Economically, the two statements can represent the same transfer of resources. Socially, they communicate very different meanings.

How to talk about money

Discussing compensation too directly can threaten the very experience the relationship aims to offer. Some interviewees prefer to negotiate indirectly, showing that they like being taken care of or sharing certain needs. Others find it more appropriate to raise the subject in person, let the man mention an amount first, or keep the conversation from turning into something like hiring a service.

That doesn't mean money disappears. The research shows the opposite: it remains a fundamental part of the relationship. What changes is its place in the story the relationship tells.

Not too transactional, not too intimate

A sugar relationship has to find a middle ground. If it becomes too transactional, it feels like a commercial exchange. If it becomes too emotional, it can lose the very feature that explains the financial arrangement.

This second situation shows up in the interviews: some sugar daddies develop genuine feelings and imagine the relationship could continue without payments, but some sugar babies don't want to remove the financial component. For them, money remains part of the structure that defines the relationship. Having an emotional connection is different from turning the arrangement into a conventional romance.

Authenticity, performance, and boundaries

Intimacy in sugar dating doesn't have to be fake to involve some degree of performance. Interviewees describe showing interest, adapting their appearance, offering emotional support, and creating enjoyable experiences. Some even describe using a kind of persona during dates. That doesn't mean every feeling is simulated: someone can genuinely enjoy another person's company while carefully managing how much of that feeling they show.

Boundaries help with that management. Some interviewees set limits on how often they meet, contact outside of dates, personal information, and forms of intimacy. And that middle ground isn't fixed: it can shift over time and call for new conversations.

Ultimately, Mongrain's argument is that a sugar relationship doesn't need to eliminate its financial dimension; it needs to integrate it into the overall meaning of the relationship. Money can exist without reducing every date to a bill, and compensation can matter without turning the relationship into a price list. Combining material benefit, companionship, and intimacy without reducing one to the other is, according to the author, an essential part of the relational work in sugar dating.