Sugar dating has become a strange source of controversy lately. With the arrest of the founder of Malaysia’s largest sugar dating site in February 2021 [1], right or wrong, there are growing calls for its complete ban. Those who possess a more conservative predisposition argue that the legality of such a site raises a host of ethical and moral concerns, with alleged links to prostitution. For example, Ahmad Marzuk has stated “this is something that is very sad for us. The app should be prevented from being used in our country Malaysia as it encourages people to do things that are not right and violate the laws including sharia law”[2]. Others however argue that the state has no right to police a private domain, as two consenting adults are of no concern to the government. Whatever one’s view towards the matter, this article will explain and analyse the legal and social implications of sugar dating in Malaysia.
Defining sugar dating:
Strictly speaking, defining sugar dating is not an easy process. This is due to the fact that, at the most basic level, it’s the facilitation of social connections. Nevertheless, in a transactional sense, it is the act of a usually economically weaker party entering a (romantic) relationship with an economically stronger party for a material benefit [3]. Arguably, this is an exceedingly simple definition, others point to the act as an elegant name for prostitution. This idea of payment for relations is likewise mirrored on Sugarbook’s own website [4], such states:
"Sugarbook is a social networking platform that helps build beneficial relationships with our society’s elite. Unlike other dating websites, we understand that privacy is of the utmost importance therefore, we strive to provide a community for honest and transparent relationships."
Legal Perspectives:
From the onset, one may be perplexed as to why there even are legal issues, as sites such as Tinder have been operating for many years, and with far less fanfare as to its legality or lack thereof.
Indeed, Tinder and similar platforms are entirely legal within Malaysia. In short, they are couple matching services and, in Malaysia, there is no such law preventing their operation. In addition, according to Foong Cheng Long, the Deputy Chairman of the Bar Council Cyber Law and Information Technology Committee, even payment for companionship is legal [5]. Yet, how does one define companionship? Is it purely an emotional connection? If yes, what about physicality? If one was to engage in sexual acts when paying for companionship, would that make it prostitution? What about other acts of a sexual nature, if one was to receive benefit from that transaction, would an offence have been committed? Thus, the crux of the difficulty within sugar dating is easy to fathom. Due to its unclear nature, where exactly does the line fall?
Some relationships between a sugar daddy or mommy and a sugar baby may well be non-sexual. Yet, it is clear that not all of them are. So, when reverting back to the initial transactional analysis, A pays B for companionship such as having dinner with A every weekend, with potentially sexual relations thrown within the mix. In return, B receives monetary and or other material benefits. Would this be prostitution?
Under the Penal Code, prostitution is defined in s372(3) as:
“the act of a person offering that person’s body for sexual gratification for hire whether in money or in kind; and “prostitute” shall be construed accordingly.”
Clearly, therefore, where sexual relations are found, the above situation could be defined as prostitution, at least in part. Where sex does occur, technically A does pay B or pays him or her “in-kind” for “sexual gratification for hire”.
Yet, the matter is not so straightforward. The Penal Code does not necessarily outlaw prostitution per se, it merely restricts the act. For instance, s372 of the Penal seemingly covers cases of exploitation that leads to one engaging in prostitution, specifically: the trafficking of prostitutes, and the trading for the purposes of prostitution. In effect, this means that anyone who acts like a pimp and smuggles men or women for the purpose of prostitution would be liable under section 372 and possibly face up to fifteen years of prison with whippings and fines.
Nevertheless, prostitutes themselves can commit the crime of solicitation. This act is dealt with under s372B which states:
“Whoever solicits or importunes for the purpose of prostitution or any immoral purpose in any place shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or with fine or with both.”
With this provision in mind, technically prostitutes can prostitute themselves to another, yet, advertising their services is illegal, and punishable by a fine or a year imprisonment. With reference back to the original debacle, that of the legality of sugar babies, it appears that, where sexual activities are involved, so long as sugar babies are not necessarily advertising sex as part of their portfolio, the act regardless of perceived morality is legal.
Still, it is to be mentioned that the legislation regarding prostitution is unclear at best, with the various prohibitions being aimed towards the prevention of trafficking and exploitation, and not necessarily being targeted towards the act itself. Moreover, this lack of focus towards the act of prostitution is mirrored within our common law brethren. In England, the exchange for sexual services for money is legal [6], and there is no restriction of such taking place in private. However, soliciting in a public place or a street is an offence [7], and like Malaysia, there are various laws in place which aim to prevent trafficking [8]. Due to these similarities within the English domain, isn't it strange that there has been little controversy within their jurisdiction?
As discussed, it is unlikely that sugar babies would be charged for an offence. And is this not correct? To deem one as a prostitute, or charge them with an offence, would be to eradicate nuances within a particular relationship. If was one was to take a step back, sexual acts may not always be the end goal of this transaction. Allen Lichtenstein has explained that in order for an exchange to be considered prostitution there has to be a "meeting of the minds" that the arrangement involves an exchange of sex for money [9]. Whilst this comment was not given within the confines of Malaysian law, the point still stands. Additionally, there are more aspects to be accounted for within the milieu of sugar dating. Whilst sex can and is certainly a part, in most occurrences, sex is not the immediate matter at play and to place a disproportionate gaze towards that aspect is to disregard the context entirely.
In any event, it is apparent that sugar dating lies within an unfamiliar grey area of Malaysian law. Whilst many may deem it to be a fancy mannerism of the age-old act of prostitution, simply put, to adjudge it as such would be to simplify an elaborately complicated subject matter.
Social issues:
Irrespective of the lack of clarity found within Malaysian law, it is without a doubt that there are several social issues pertaining to certain practices of sugar dating.
For instance, the nature of sugar relationships can connote an unproportionate power distribution, due to the age and or wealth difference. As a result, it has been suggested that in these relationships, younger people tend to be powerless when it comes to negotiating or discussing safe sexual practices with their older partners.[10] Subsequently, sugar babies may find it difficult to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections, and may even have to endure sexual violence and exploitation by their older partners.
Further, it has been observed that young people are more likely to partake in these relationships if they are economically vulnerable, indicating a clear link between sugar dating and poverty.[11] Although prima facie, these relationships do not necessarily entail sexual relations, it can be seen as implicit that engaging in sexual relations would grant individuals greater economic opportunities. In turn, those stricken with poverty may partake in such acts in order to finance their basic needs and education.[12] This hypothesis has seemingly been confirmed by the world's largest sugar dating platform, SeekingArrangement, whereby the practice is manifestly common in countries with high-tertiary education penetration such as Malaysia.[13] Nevertheless, it should also be noted that among reasons for participation, not all rationales stem from the lack of basic resources – some simply desire access to more lavish items. Like all things in life, there is a spectrum.
Conclusion
As mentioned prior, it is apparent that sugar dating lies within a strange limbo of uncertainty pertaining to the law. Whilst it would be unsuitable to label and prosecute the act as if it was purely prostitution, due to sugar dating taking many shapes and sizes, saying that such an offence would be out of the question is inaccurate. Despite this unclarity within the law, stemming from the difficulty of classifying and or defining sugar dating, what is clear is that there is a breadth of social issues relating to the practice. With increasing numbers of individuals partaking in sugar dating, these issues such as poverty and exploitation must be taken seriously.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article belong solely to the author and do not reflect the views of Taylor's Education Group. Additionally, this article is for informational purposes only. Please exercise your discretion before making any judgements.
References:
[1] https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysian-police-arrest-founder-of-sugarbook-a-sugar-daddy-dating-platform
[2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjpan5/sugar-book-malaysia-ban
[6] http://www.mash.org.uk/get-support/the-law/
[7] S51A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
[8] S53 and s53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
[10] Bathelemy Kuate-Defo, ‘Young People’s Relationships with Sugar Daddies and Sugar Mummies: What do We Know and What Do We Need to Know?’ African Journal of Reproductive Health, Aug. 2004, Vol. 8. No. 2 (Aug. 2004), pp. 13-37.
[11] ibid
[12] ibid
Comments