🦋🤖 Robo-Spun by IBF 🦋🤖

🪞⚔️👁️ Post-Feminizm 🪞⚔️👁️

(link)

Introduction: A grim phenomenon is spreading among young women of Generation Z: an increasing number are subjecting themselves to extreme cosmetic surgeries to achieve doll-like perfection, only to auction their modified bodies and companionship to wealthy older men as “sugar babies.” This trend is nothing short of disturbing, degenerate, and morally corrosive. It represents a collapse of fundamental values – trading dignity, authentic relationships, and self-respect for cash and illusory social status. In an era since 2020 marked by economic turmoil (from Turkey’s inflationary meltdown to global recessions) and a social media-fueled obsession with vanity, this grotesque lifestyle is perversely branded by some as female empowerment. But there is nothing empowering about self-objectification or being preyed on by rich “sponsors.” This report takes an unsparing, unflinching look at the depravity and sociocultural rot at the heart of this trend. It exposes the exploitation inherent in these transactional relationships, the psychological and spiritual emptiness they breed, and the broader harm being done to society’s fabric. We will analyze the toxic motivations driving young women to become plastic dolls for sugar daddies, the manipulative dynamics at play, the role of social media and modern feminist rhetoric in sanitizing this decay, and the dire consequences for personal and societal well-being. The evidence – from sociological studies to real-life case accounts – paints a harrowing picture of a generation teetering on the brink of nihilism, as genuine love, family, and meaning are eclipsed by the vacuous pursuit of money and validation.

The “Doll-Like” Transformation: Gen Z’s Obsession with Plastic Perfection

In the 2020s, cosmetic surgery among young women has surged dramatically, driven by social media beauty ideals and a ruthless pressure to look like living dolls. Unlike past generations who sought minor tucks in middle age, Gen Z women – even teens – are undergoing procedures in droves to sculpt themselves into artificial perfection. Statistics confirm this alarming boom: between 2019 and 2022 the use of Botox and similar injectables jumped 73%, and even among teenagers under 20, Botox usage rose 9% just from 2022 to 2023. Fully 75% of plastic surgeons report seeing more clients under 30 now, an unprecedented youth skew. This “prejuvenation” craze – preventing aging before it even begins – shows how deeply the unrealistic beauty standards of the digital age have penetrated Gen Z psyches. Bombarded by Instagram filters and face-editing apps, young women have come to see flawless, almost cartoonish looks as normal, and they are “all-in” on avatar-esque enhancements to match these fake ideals. As one plastic surgeon observed, “between filters and AI, we’re creating unrealistic expectations of what people should look like – and the under-thirty crowd is extremely impressionable”. Indeed, many Gen Z patients are requesting exaggerated features that can make them look more like virtual characters than humans; even fellow surgeons admit some post-surgery faces resemble “a Who from Whoville” due to absurd tweaks inspired by TikTok fads.

At the extreme end of this spectrum lies the “living doll” aesthetic – young women remaking themselves to look like Barbie dolls or anime characters. It sounds like the stuff of satire, but it’s tragically real. Take the case of Ophelia Vanity, a Los Angeles woman who became obsessed with turning herself into a Barbie. Bullied in youth for her Asian features and craving self-esteem, she spent over \$35,000 on surgeries – nose jobs, eyelid enlargements, lip plumping, Botox – to achieve a “doll-like look”, and amassed 83,000 Instagram followers by styling herself as an “Anime Barbie”. Not satisfied, this 31-year-old planned even more extreme alterations: bleaching her skin, removing six ribs for an impossibly tiny waist, even implanting artificial iris lenses to permanently change her eye color. Her entire identity became the facade of a doll. While Ophelia claims contentment with her new face, an outside observer can only call her story an “unimaginably sad tale of the pressures of modern society”. She is far from alone – the past decade has seen multiple young women from Ukraine to China undertaking similar “Barbie” transformations, driven by a toxic mix of insecurity, social media attention-seeking, and body dysmorphic disorder. Psychologists note that people fixated on becoming human dolls often suffer severe body image distortions: they literally don’t see themselves the way others do, fueling an obsessive belief that an unattainable extreme of beauty is ideal. Social comparison starts early – by age 6, most girls start feeling body dissatisfaction, and by age 10 about 80% have dieted to lose weight. In a world saturated with images of surgically perfected influencers, it’s no surprise some impressionable young women escalate from childhood diet angst to an adult conviction that only looking like a plastic figurine will make them “worthy.”

Tragically, this pursuit of doll-like perfection can exact a deadly toll. The cosmetic procedures Gen Z favors are not trivial; many are painful and risky. Consider the notorious Brazilian Butt Lift (BBL) – a surgery to inflate the buttocks that became wildly popular through Instagram models. The BBL carries the highest mortality rate of any cosmetic surgery, with plastic surgery associations issuing urgent warnings about its “alarming rate of mortality”. Aspiring influencers have died on the operating table chasing an exaggerated hourglass figure. Even “routine” surgeries like breast augmentations or nose jobs carry risks of infection, nerve damage, or disfigurement. Young women, however, are often undeterred. Within sugar baby circles, going under the knife is sometimes seen as a necessary investment to attract wealthy benefactors. An industry blog for sugar dating bluntly tells women that, thanks to social media and peer pressure, “sugar babies need to have a certain level of attractiveness” and should “undergo plastic surgery” if needed to maintain the flawless look that many sugar daddies expect. Breast enlargements, lip fillers, nose shaping, even jawline surgery are touted as common among the “Sugar Bowl” community. The message is clear: to compete in the marketplace of looks, you must literally sculpt yourself into the fantasy ideal of a shallow man. And many young women comply – some even persuade their sugar daddies to fund their cosmetic surgeries, treating it as just another bill the man should cover for his “investment” in her. It is a grotesque barter: women mutilate their natural bodies to resemble sex dolls, and in exchange men reward them with money and attention. In the process, the women’s humanity is chiseled away along with their nose cartilage and rib bones.

What drives a generation of young women to such extremes? The surface answer is vanity and validation – these women have been indoctrinated to believe their value lies solely in a hyper-sexualized, photoshopped beauty standard. Social media saturates them with images of “perfect” influencers, breeding mass insecurity. Research confirms a direct correlation between social media use and cosmetic surgery desire: Gen Z women who spend more time on Instagram, TikTok, and face-filter apps are significantly more likely to want surgical enhancements. Following popular beauty influencers or cosmetic surgeons online magnifies that desire. In essence, Big Tech and Big Beauty have teamed up to bombard young women with the notion that their unaltered faces and bodies are not good enough. By their late teens, many have internalized the idea that self-worth is synonymous with looking like an airbrushed centerfold. The psychological underpinnings often trace back to body dysmorphia and low self-esteem, as mentioned – childhood bullying or merely growing up in a culture of harsh beauty judgments leaves deep scars. The case of Ophelia Vanity illustrates how early trauma (ridicule for her ethnic looks) morphed into a pathological drive to erase her own natural features in favor of a Western doll ideal. Rather than heal those insecurities, society offered her the surgeon’s knife and an Instagram account as “solutions.” Countless others, lacking healthy validation or confidence, similarly turn to procedures hoping that a perfected exterior will finally make them feel valuable and loved. It is a false hope – surgical perfection is a receding horizon, always requiring another tweak, another filler, another filter to chase the ever-changing ideal. Gen Z lives under the tyranny of the selfie, where existence is performative and appearance is everything. This is the fertile ground in which the sugar baby phenomenon took root: a legion of cosmetically-enhanced young women, taught that their best (or only) asset is their looks, now seeking to monetize those looks in transactions with wealthy men.

Selling Companionship and Sex for Cash: Inside the “Sugar Baby” Lifestyle

Once a young woman has transformed herself into the image of a living doll – or even if she simply has the natural beauty and willingness to play the part – the next step into depravity is becoming a “sugar baby.” This euphemism describes what is, in brutal reality, freelance prostitution packaged as a dating arrangement. A sugar baby is typically a woman in her late teens or twenties who enters a transactional relationship with a much older, affluent man (the “sugar daddy”). She provides sexual and emotional services – from dates and flirtation to sex and fetish acts – and in exchange he provides payment, lavish gifts, or financial support. It is effectively pay-per-meet sex work dressed up with a veneer of glamour. As one sugar baby succinctly explained to baffled outsiders: “A sugar baby is a young lady dating older men who provide for her”. The man might cover her rent, tuition, or buy luxury items; the woman, in turn, surrenders her body and pretends affection to keep the patron happy. Any illusion that these are just May-December romances is shattered by the common experiences sugar babies report: “Daddies can dress it up by saying they want a genuine connection… but the real driving force in all this is sex,” admits Ruby, a veteran sugar baby in the UK. The men may shower flowery talk about mentorship and fine dining, but at bottom they expect sexual favors as their return on investment. “No one will give you anything for nothing,” says another young woman, Eve, who tried being a sugar baby as a student – “sex is almost always brought up straight away, with most sugar daddies having no interest in anything else.”. The supposed “girlfriend experience” is a farce; these older men are simply paying for a young body and the superficial thrill of a pretty girl on their arm.

Unlike regulated prostitution, the sugar baby scene is often portrayed as “classy” or easy – an exchange of companionship for cash that stops short of overt sex work. Social media is filled with posts from sugar babies bragging about expensive handbags and fancy vacations gifted by their “sponsors,” implying they live a life of leisure without having to do much more than look pretty. This is a dangerous lie. The reality of sugar dating is far less glamorous: for most women it entails ad-hoc meetings for sex in hotels, meager payments, and men who try to haggle prices down as if shopping in a bargain bin. “My life as a sugar baby… looks more like meeting up for sex while so-called daddies tell you they’ve spent £8,000 on a bottle of wine, got 30 supercars, then try to barter your payment down to £50,” Ruby recounts, cutting through the myth with a dose of cold reality. Rather than the Hollywood-esque scenario of a rich benefactor whisking a young woman to Monaco on a yacht, the typical sugar arrangement in places like the UK is a “pay-per-meet” encounter – essentially an escorting gig – often for surprisingly low compensation. The promised life of luxury rarely materializes for the woman; the men are often miserly or manipulative with money. They know they hold the power – and they exploit it. Many sugar babies eventually confront the harsh truth that they have entered a degrading marketplace where their youthful beauty is just a commodity to be rented and discarded. As Ruby puts it, “honestly, it’s a facade.” The men like to imagine they’re desirable sages and the women pretend to adore them for their “amazing” success, but in truth “daddies think they own you. They see you as a product they’ve bought and can do anything they want with”.

That sentiment is echoed by Eve, who after her stint as a sugar baby was left with deep trauma and PTSD from the abuse she endured. “You feel like your consent no longer means anything because they’ve paid you. It’s a kind of coercion,” she says of the dynamic. In theory, a sugar baby could set boundaries – in practice, once money changes hands, many men treat the woman as their property for the hour. Eve describes how her boundaries were relentlessly pushed: she was pressured into extreme sexual acts she never anticipated, “pretty intense and kink-related” requests well beyond any “girlfriend” illusion. She felt helpless to refuse, uncertain of her rights or even whether she could legally report assaults that happened under the guise of a consensual arrangement. This highlights the insidious nature of sugar relationships: because they are seen as “consensual” and often kept secret, the women have no support structure or legal protections. They fall outside even the minimal safety net of regulated sex work. They can’t turn to the police without revealing their own involvement in quasi-prostitution; they often feel they have no choice but to tolerate whatever the paying man demands. “I had no idea how to keep myself safe… only in hindsight did I realise how dangerous it was,” Eve reflects grimly.

The power imbalance in these relationships cannot be overstated. A typical sugar daddy is a man in his 40s, 50s or older, flush with cash and worldly experience; the sugar baby is often an 18- or 20-year-old college student or desperate young worker, lured in by financial need or greed. The man holds all the cards – money, maturity, and sometimes a cruel streak sharpened by years of indulging his appetites. The woman, far from “using” the man, more often ends up used and dependent. Many sugar babies initially think they will “scam gullible old men” for easy money (the internet is full of tongue-in-cheek tips on how to get a sugar daddy to pay you without sex). But the tables turn quickly. As one observer noted, young women might feel a “false sense of power when you’re getting money,” but in reality “so often the daddies think they own you”. They hold the purse strings, so they set the rules. And those rules can be degrading. If the girl won’t play along, the money stops – coercing her compliance. This is why we can accurately call sugar dating a form of exploitation. It mimics the worst aspects of traditional prostitution, including the potential for violence. In Britain, as more women have flocked to sex work under economic pressure, support charities warn that “the more desperate you are for money, the more ready you are to provide services that you wouldn’t normally want to”, and this leads to taking greater risks with dangerous clients. In the sugar world, unscrupulous men abound – scammers who trick women into unpaid encounters, predators who push drugs or unsafe sex, even human traffickers using sugar sites as hunting grounds. A young woman stepping into this arena without experience is, as one commentator put it, “a lamb to slaughter.” The façade of a “dating” arrangement leaves many ill-informed about what they’re getting into, making them easier to groom and exploit. On TikTok and Reddit, seasoned sex workers express alarm that sugar baby influencers are “grooming a bunch of teenagers into sex work” by painting it with rose-colored filters.

The situation in economically struggling regions is even more dire. In Turkey, for instance, years of economic collapse have created fertile ground for these transactional relationships. With inflation skyrocketing to 85% in 2022, a 24-year record, and basic living costs becoming unattainable, many young Turkish women have felt cornered into selling sex or companionship just to survive. Turkey’s youth unemployment hit around 25% during the pandemic downturn, leaving tens of thousands of young people (especially educated women) jobless and financially desperate. In such conditions, the prospect of a rich man’s patronage – however degrading – can start to seem like the only lifeline. Reports from Turkey indicate a spike in sex work amid the crisis: advocacy groups observed a “considerable spike” in people turning to sex work or struggling to afford housing, directly linked to the economic crash. One Turkish sex worker lamented, “I have to work all the time without a break, just to pay [the bills]. What about the harm it will do to my body, my mental health?”. This underscores that under crushing economic forces, the calculus of exploitation becomes even more brutal. Whether in Turkey, the UK, or elsewhere, when living costs soar and opportunities collapse, more women are pushed into this shadowy market. In Britain, charities saw a 30% jump in women seeking to start sex work in 2022 amid 10% inflation. Similarly, anecdotal evidence from Turkey’s crisis (and other distressed economies) suggests college students and even mothers have resorted to selling sexual services or entering “arrangements” to keep food on the table. Far from a glamorous game, it is survival prostitution in all but name.

Thus, the sugar baby phenomenon thrives at the dark intersection of greed and desperation. On one hand, there are those women enticed by the promise of fast cash and luxury – the “get rich quick” mindset fanned by social media. On the other hand, many are driven by sheer need – unable to pay rent or tuition, they see no option but to rent out themselves. In both cases, the result is the same: exploitation, loss of autonomy, and often profound unhappiness. Any notion that these young women are merely liberated entrepreneurs “selling a service” on their own terms is usually shattered by reality. As one former sugar baby, Esperanza, wrote of her experience: “After a few years of the sex trade, I couldn’t take it anymore. I felt trapped in the industry and it made me feel so alone and so sad. I wanted a ‘normal’ life… I didn’t want to give random men access to my body anymore. I didn’t want to pretend every day to be okay with clients who played out their worst fantasies on me…”. This powerful testimony lays bare the emptiness and exhaustion that come with such a lifestyle. The sugar baby may start thinking she’ll coast through easy interactions for cash, but pretending to be enamored night after night, suppressing one’s true feelings, and enduring the often depraved desires of paying “customers” exacts a heavy psychological toll. In the end, many women find themselves soul-sick: isolated, hollowed out by repeated emotional labor and unwanted sex, their self-worth in tatters despite the designer handbags on their arm.

Social Media: Glamorizing Prostitution and Fueling Narcissism

If there is a gasoline poured on this fire of decadence, it is social media. Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and OnlyFans have been instrumental in glamorizing the sugar baby lifestyle and normalizing extreme self-objectification among youth. The power of these apps to shape norms and desires cannot be overstated: they have created a feedback loop in which young women broadcast an image of the “luxurious sugar baby life,” other girls see it and yearn for the same riches, and an entire subculture is formed, divorced from reality. On TikTok, tags like #sugarbaby have exploded in popularity. By late 2022, videos with the sugarbaby hashtag had over 720 million views on TikTok, an app dominated by teens and 20-somethings. This content often paints an idyllic picture: young women show off expensive Prada bags, jewelry, and first-class travel gifted by their sugar daddies, often coyly implying they did little more than smile and chat to earn such bounty. They swap tips on how to find rich men, how to negotiate allowances, even how to avoid sleeping with a man unless absolutely necessary – creating a seductive narrative that one can have all the perks of sex work with none of the sex or downside. It is essentially recruitment propaganda, and tragically, it’s working. In the comments of these TikTok videos, one sees droves of “young girls sold on a lie, asking how to sign up.” The fantasy of “free money” and glamour lures them in.

The reality that TikTok sugar baby influencers don’t show is precisely what we outlined earlier – the near inevitability of sexual demands and the risks of exploitation. Yet because TikTok officially bans overt content about prostitution or pornography, this sugar-coated content slips through: by avoiding explicit mention of sex, creators can showcase the lifestyle without triggering moderation. Thus, TikTok ends up tacitly promoting and glorifying sexual solicitation, despite its guidelines, by allowing the sugar baby videos to remain visible to millions. The result is that naïve viewers, often still teenagers, consume a steady diet of misinformation: they come to believe being a sugar baby is easy money, “full of perks with no drawbacks and not a glimpse of intimacy or sex work involved,” as Glamour magazine observed of this troubling trend. Experienced sex workers and long-term sugar babies watch in horror as a new generation is essentially being groomed online. “The glamorization…is covering over a darker reality,” warns Eve, the ex-sugar baby. “Sugar-coated with a more innocent label… young users could be slipping into sex work without even realising.” On Reddit forums, even self-identified sugar babies are alarmed that TikTok’s flood of “no strings attached” narratives “gives a false sense of expectations” and is “grooming a bunch of teenagers into sex work.” The term “lambs to slaughter” appears again – Eve explicitly fears that this rose-tinted portrayal “does nothing but lead more lambs to slaughter” by enticing young women into a dangerous world they are utterly unprepared for.

It is worth noting that even some prominent sugar baby influencers have developed qualms about the monster they’ve created. Summer Saito, a TikToker with over 50,000 followers who became popular by flaunting her sugar baby adventures, admitted her concern that “no matter how many safety tip videos we put out there, people still aren’t fully understanding or taking the advice… There aren’t enough safety tips in the world to make someone realize what you can get yourself into until you’re actually in a dangerous situation. It’s easy to look away from red flags and lose common sense with money tied into the picture.” In other words, the allure of money blinds young women to the risks – and no amount of after-the-fact cautioning can fully pierce that greed or naivety. Another influencer, known for insisting her sugar relationships involve no intimacy, nonetheless conceded that she has “felt pressured into being intimate” and been put in “uncomfortable” situations. These are the success stories of Sugar Baby TikTok speaking – even they cannot deny the coercive undercurrents. Yet the platform’s overall thrust remains one of celebration and normalization of the sugar lifestyle. TikTok’s algorithm eagerly promotes this content because it’s alluring, it generates engagement (mostly from young women dreaming of escape from their financial or personal struggles), and it skirts the letter of content rules. In doing so, the app effectively normalizes prostitution-adjacent behavior for an entire youth cohort, reframing it as just another side hustle or dating choice.

Beyond sugar-specific content, social media at large has cultivated a narcissistic, materialistic culture that primes Gen Z to seek validation through commodifying themselves. Instagram, for instance, is infamous for its “influencer lifestyle” posts – luxurious trips, designer outfits, VIP events – which many times are financed either by brand deals or by older benefactors supporting these women. The platform has also given rise to countless accounts openly advertising “SG dating” or using emojis/euphemisms to signal willingness to be taken care of by rich men. Young women see peers apparently living the high life and feel envy and FOMO (fear of missing out). The psychological impact is well-documented: research shows today’s young adults are more narcissistic than ever, with more than 1 in 10 people in their twenties exhibiting subclinical narcissism. Social media is identified as a key cause – by encouraging people to obsess over their public image and chase the dopamine high of likes, these apps literally cultivate narcissistic traits. Gen Z users who already have narcissistic leanings spend more time on the apps, becoming addicted to attention. And those who use social media heavily are, in turn, likely to become more narcissistic over time. It’s a vicious cycle: the platforms reward vanity and self-promotion, which encourages more extreme behavior to stand out. Becoming a sugar baby – broadcasting that you have men willing to pay for you – can be seen as the ultimate flex in this warped value system. It’s the gamification of one’s personal life: women literally compete on TikTok or Instagram over who got the priciest gifts or the biggest allowance from a sugar daddy, vying for clout among their peers. This dynamic further erodes any sense of shame or moral questioning; it’s all about the “score” (wealth, luxury goods) and the applause of followers. Empathy and introspection fall by the wayside.

Yet ironically, this narcissism coexists with profound anxiety and insecurity. Mental health studies find that behind the curated confident personas, heavy social media users often grapple with loneliness, depression and low self-esteem. Psychologists talk of a “vulnerable narcissism” common in today’s youth: an outward show of self-importance masking a fragile need for reassurance. These individuals are actually hungry for validation because they lack an internal sense of worth. For a young woman who fits this profile, being desired (even in a purely transactional way) by a wealthy older man might seem like the ultimate validation. It’s external proof she is “worth something.” But it’s a devil’s bargain – the approval she gains is contingent and objectifying, often leaving her feeling worse in the long run. Indeed, researchers have found that both grandiose and vulnerable narcissists among young people suffer heightened anxiety and tend to become addicted to apps like TikTok precisely because they seek positive feedback they can’t find offline. The sugar baby arrangement provides that short-term ego boost (“a rich man finds me attractive enough to pay my bills”) while likely deepening the long-term insecurities (“would anyone love me without the money? Is this all I’m good for?”).

Social media not only glamorizes the lifestyle but also logistically fuels it. Entire websites and apps (SeekingArrangement, OnlyFans, etc.) serve as marketplaces for these transactional exchanges. OnlyFans in particular has boomed since 2020, enabling countless young women to sell explicit photos and videos directly to paying “fans” (a form of virtual sugar relationship often). During the COVID-19 pandemic, OnlyFans user numbers exploded – doubling from 12 million to 30 million in just a few months of 2020. Many turned to it out of financial desperation when jobs disappeared. In Turkey, for example, economic conditions drove creators to OnlyFans, with youth unemployment at 24.5% pushing young women to seek income on the platform. But while a handful of top earners made headlines for becoming millionaires, the reality for most is bleak: the average OnlyFans creator makes around \$151 a month. In other words, thousands of young women are disrobing and performing sexually online for peanuts, competing in an oversaturated market that richly rewards only the top 1% and leaves the rest effectively in digital strip clubs with little to show for it. This again is sold as “empowering” – because the platform allows women to be their own bosses – but it camouflages the truth that economic necessity is the primary driver and exploitation is still rampant. As a Marxist feminist analysis noted, OnlyFans “sells a postfeminist fantasy of autonomy, agency, and success”, encouraging women to “take control of your sexuality and monetize it on your own terms.” But this glossy image “obscures the true reality of the sex work industry” – namely that the vast majority of women do it because they need money, not for empowerment or joy. It is simply the latest evolution of commodifying female bodies, repackaged for the Instagram era.

To summarize, social media has supercharged the commodification of women’s bodies and glamorized sexual exploitation through clever rebranding. It enables young women to advertise themselves to the highest bidder, encourages them to broadcast their objectification as a status symbol, and indoctrinates their peers into believing this is normal, even desirable. The entire phenomenon is propped up by tech platforms that profit from the spectacle – whether through ad revenue on viral TikToks or subscription cuts on OnlyFans. The end result is an environment where self-objectification is not only normalized but celebrated. The line between an influencer and a sex worker has blurred: both trade in manufactured intimacy and attention-seeking, often overlapping (indeed many influencers do resort to selling nude content or engaging in “private arrangements” to supplement their income). And underlying it all is a stark hollowness. A society that tells young women their greatest achievement is to be a rich man’s plaything – and tells young men that their measure of success is the youth and attractiveness of the women they can purchase – is a society rotting at its core. It replaces human connection with followers and sponsors, genuine self-esteem with likes and cash tips. It is, in the words of one commentator, a “Trojan horse – dressed up as empowerment but still leading women right back to the age-old roles of catering to men.” Social media may be a modern tool, but it has resurrected and turbo-charged the oldest oppression: reducing women to commodities and convincing them it’s their idea.

Perversion of Feminism: The “Empowered Sex Worker” Myth

Perhaps one of the most perverse aspects of this trend is the way mainstream feminism and media (or at least a vocal strain of them) have rushed to reframe outright exploitation as a form of liberation. In recent years, a “sex-positive” and ultra-relativistic narrative has taken hold: it claims that if a woman chooses to objectify herself, to monetize her sexuality, then that act is by definition empowering. According to this view, the sugar baby who uses her youthful allure to get money from men is actually a feminist icon of sorts – “sticking it to the man” by taking his cash, exercising agency over her body, and subverting traditional norms. This narrative has been vigorously promoted by certain academics, journalists, and even the very platforms that profit from the sex trade. It is a shallow, consumerist narrative that grotesquely twists the true ethos of women’s empowerment.

Consider an op-ed in the Harvard Crimson titled “Don’t Shame the Sugar, Baby”, written by a self-described feminist student. The author recounts how she and her friends used to half-jokingly fantasize in high school about joining sugar daddy websites to pay for college, and she questions why society is so judgmental about the idea. She argues that we wrongly conflate sugar relationships with prostitution and that “Sugaring shouldn’t be associated with sex work” – insisting it’s fundamentally an exchange of companionship, like paying a therapist or paying for someone’s time. More startlingly, she claims supporting sugar babies is a mark of enlightened feminism: “How feminist of us to support other women who took advantage of every opportunity, sticking it to the man for the sake of advancing herself,” she writes, describing her friend group’s attitude. In her view, a sugar baby is not accepting objectification but cleverly “refuting” the system of harassment by “demanding payment” from men for her company. The refrain is familiar: stop judging women for their choices; if it’s her choice, it’s empowering. This author even equates a dinner date for money to a therapy session – after all, we pay therapists to listen to us, so why not pay a pretty girl to accompany a man? It’s just another service, in this line of thinking, and to be against it is prudish or even misogynistic.

This is the kind of “lightweight feminism” that has been used to deflect criticism from the sugar lifestyle. Promoters of sugar dating – including the CEO of SeekingArrangement himself – eagerly deploy the rhetoric that “being a sugar baby [is] an inherently political, and feminist, act”, and that any critics “don’t get it” or simply hate women. It’s a convenient shield: if you dare point out the exploitation or moral bankruptcy, you’re labeled anti-feminist or a slut-shamer. One attendee of a sugar baby “empowerment” conference in London noted that the feminism angle was trotted out repeatedly by speakers mainly to silence any doubts: “a way of saying ‘you can’t have a problem with this, that would be un-feminist’”. Yet tellingly, many of the actual sugar babies at that event didn’t even care about the feminist justification; some didn’t know what “feminist” meant. The empowerment narrative is often a marketing ploy, concocted by the industry and swallowed by academics or journalists, rather than something coming organically from the women selling sex. It’s a classic case of ideology being used to gloss over ugly realities.

Let’s be clear: labeling sugar dating or commercial sex “feminist” is a cruel joke. It hijacks the language of liberation to sanction a practice that is fundamentally about women’s subordination to male desire. Even some within feminist circles have started to push back on this myth. As one critic put it, “just because they’re intelligent or educated doesn’t mean [they] – and the sugaring lifestyle as a whole – [are] not problematic. And calling their reasoning out for being problematic… doesn’t mean you hate women or that you’re shaming them for being sex-positive.” In other words, one can fully support women’s rights and autonomy while condemning the social phenomenon of sugar baby prostitution as harmful. The idea that every choice a woman makes is beyond critique is absurd – people (of any gender) can make choices that reinforce harmful power structures. A woman choosing to be in a degrading arrangement is still in a degrading arrangement; her consent does not magically transform exploitation into empowerment. As the Babe.net piece by Roisin Lanigan incisively noted, leaning on choice feminism alone to defend sugar dating “leaves the lifestyle – and the people who lead it – open to endless criticism.” Why? Because it offers no rebuttal to the substantive issues: infantilization, commodification, health and safety harms. It simply tries to shut down debate by invoking choice. But choice exists within social and economic contexts. A choice made under severe constraints or heavy indoctrination is a constrained choice. As we have seen, many sugar babies “choose” this life due to financial strain, lack of alternatives, or grooming by societal messaging. Calling it empowerment is, frankly, adding insult to injury.

Mainstream media too has jumped on the bandwagon of portraying sex work in rosy terms. We see articles in glossy magazines about “Top 10 Tips to Be a Successful Sugar Baby” or profiles of women who claim stripping or OnlyFans empowered them to become entrepreneurs. Even academic circles have factions that argue sex work can be “beneficial to women” by giving them financial independence. But these narratives usually cherry-pick rare success stories and ignore the majority experience. The truth, as borne out by research and survivors’ testimonies, is that sex work (including sugar arrangements) overwhelmingly involves women with reduced options making the best of a bad situation, often ending up with trauma. For instance, 68% of people who sell sex have symptoms of depression and 55% have anxiety disorders. Nearly one-third suffer from PTSD in studies – rates higher than even war veterans. Does this sound like “empowerment”? Being left so psychologically scarred that one is as traumatized as someone coming out of combat – how dare anyone call that liberating. As one analysis bluntly put it, “A majority of sex workers engage in the profession out of economic necessity, not personal fulfillment… This isn’t about freedom; it’s about survival.” Dressing up survival as freedom is a cynical distortion.

Some strains of modern feminism – particularly those steeped in neoliberal, individualistic thinking – have a lot to answer for in this regard. They have essentially conflated empowerment with consumer choice. If a woman is “choosing” to sell nude photos, or choosing to cosmetically sculpt herself, or choosing to date rich men for money, then – this ideology claims – that is automatically a feminist act because she decided it. This simplistic notion totally ignores the context of patriarchal social conditioning and capitalist pressure that heavily influence and limit her “choices.” As the Medium essay “Sex Work and the Illusion of Liberation” pointed out, sex work has long existed precisely because it “fits neatly into the structures of power that have always existed” – in other words, patriarchy. For centuries, society offered women few avenues besides serving men sexually or domestically; prostitution was often the only permitted job for women outside the home. To now claim that engaging in that age-old role is the epitome of liberation is absurd. It’s telling women: conform to the patriarchy’s oldest script (cater to male desires) but do it “enthusiastically” and call it empowerment. It’s the same subjugation with a fresh coat of lipstick. As Mj Emmanuella wrote, “Sex work is a sneaky Trojan horse – dressed up as empowerment but still leading women right back to the age-old roles of catering to men… Both [the sex worker and the traditional housewife] reinforce the idea that women’s primary value lies in their ability to serve men… Nothing about either is empowering.” This nails the truth: whether a woman is being pressured to be a chaste, dutiful wife or pressured to be a hyper-sexual sugar baby, the common denominator is male entitlement to women’s bodies.

Real empowerment would be a society where women aren’t forced to choose between poverty and sexual exploitation, where their worth isn’t measured by their appeal to men, and where sexuality is mutual and respectful, not a commodity. The sugar baby phenomenon is the antithesis of that. It reinforces every patriarchal norm: women’s bodies are commodities purchasable by men, women are expected to trade sex for security, older powerful men are entitled to younger women’s beauty, etc. Proponents claim the women “control” the men by taking their money, but this is a dangerous delusion. As the Medium essay observed, “The notion that women can control men with sex… is fundamentally flawed… because she must always play to the tune of her piper to eat.” In sugar arrangements, the woman’s leverage is minimal – he who pays calls the shots. If she withholds sex, the arrangement ends (at best) or he may react violently (at worst). There is no structural power gained by individual women temporarily extracting money from men; if anything, it cements the idea that everything, even intimacy, is up for sale to those who can afford it. This in turn warps how men view all women. When affluent men habitually pay for sex or sugar relationships, they begin to see all relationships as transactional and view women in general as either purchasable or gold-diggers. It “normalizes the objectification of women, making it easier for society to see them as commodities rather than individuals.” In broader terms, it perpetuates a sexual culture where men expect that money = entitlement to women’s bodies, a mindset that is poisonous and can fuel harassment and assault (e.g. men angry when they don’t get what they feel entitled to after spending money). This is the rotten fruit of the so-called empowerment narrative: a world where both women and men internalize that female sexuality is a service or product. That’s exactly what patriarchy has always promulgated. As feminist scholar Catherine MacKinnon famously argued, “The only reason sex work exists is because of patriarchy.” Men have power and resources, women as a class have less, so some women are driven to sell what patriarchy values in them (sex). To celebrate that as liberation is to grievously misunderstand liberation.

Even some “sex-positive” feminists are now grappling with the hollowness of the empowerment claim. Wendi, a 39-year-old sugar baby on TikTok who doles out advice, insists that she tries to teach young newcomers about “respect for one’s boundaries and self-love, nurtured independently from anyone’s validation”, and she worries that many girls are “running around feeling like shit about themselves.” She encourages her followers to not do anything out of desperation and to remember they’re not someone’s property. This is a nice sentiment – but an ironic one, considering the entire sugar arrangement inherently puts the young woman in a position of needing validation (and cash) from someone else. Wendi’s advice to “never sell yourself short” – “whatever you think you’re worth, add tax” – while intended to instill confidence, still frames the woman’s value in financial terms. She is literally reducing self-worth to a price tag, even if she’s saying make the price as high as possible. This is not emancipation; it’s the ideology of the marketplace invading the most intimate aspects of life. And note, Wendi still maintains that “sometimes [sugar dating] doesn’t even include physical intimacy… they want companionship”. The need to keep asserting that “not all sugar involves sex” is part of the sanitizing strategy – it attempts to distinguish sugaring from “dirty” prostitution. But as we’ve seen, even Wendi admits she has felt pressure to be intimate. The vast majority of sugar daddies absolutely expect sex (or sexual acts) – any claim otherwise is disingenuous or applies to a tiny minority of asexual “financiers.”

In short, the modern feminist complicity in romanticizing this trend is a sad reflection of how co-opted certain feminist discourses have become by neoliberal and pop-cultural values. Empowerment has been reduced to a buzzword to sell what is essentially self-exploitation. As one writer quipped, “sex work is a sneaky Trojan horse… Another instance being the traditional wife… two sides of the same coin… Both roles reinforce the idea that a woman’s worth is tied to what she can offer men. Nothing about either is empowering.” True empowerment would mean a young woman doesn’t feel compelled to alter her body and rent herself to survive or to gain self-esteem. It would mean she has the freedom to pursue education, career, and relationships on her own terms, not dictated by economic coercion or male demand. The sugar baby phenomenon is a glaring sign that we are moving further away from that ideal, even as some cheerfully call it a sign of women’s “freedom.” It’s a freedom as defined by consumer capitalism: the “freedom” to sell anything, including yourself, in the market. That is a dehumanizing conception of freedom. It leaves these women spiritually bankrupt and often financially little better off, and it leaves society with its moral compass utterly broken.

Emotional Wasteland: Loneliness, Anxiety, and the Destruction of Self-Worth

Beyond the glossy Instagram posts and the wads of cash, the personal toll on these young women is devastating. Long-term mental and emotional consequences plague those who go down the road of extreme self-objectification and transactional sex. The human psyche is not built to thrive in conditions of persistent inauthenticity and commodification of one’s intimate self. Over time, sugar babies and “empowered” sex workers often suffer from intense loneliness, anxiety, depression, and a loss of identity. They have been, in effect, cut off from their true selves – performing a role for survival or gain, while their inner needs go unmet and their boundaries repeatedly violated.

Numerous studies have documented the mental health impact of prostitution and related forms of sex work. The numbers are grim: in one U.S. study, 68% of people in the sex trade had symptoms of depression, and 55% had anxiety disorders. Another study found nearly one-third met criteria for full PTSD, and overall sex workers have significantly higher rates of PTSD than even combat veterans. To put it plainly, enduring unwanted sex and constant objectification is psychologically traumatizing – it often leaves the same scars as physical abuse or wartime violence. One does not need a clinical study to imagine why. These women endure a constant violation of self: every time a sugar baby forces a smile and endures a touch or act she doesn’t truly welcome, her mind and body register a violation. When it happens over and over, it creates complex trauma. As Esperanza, a survivor, wrote, she eventually could no longer dissociate from the pain: “I didn’t want to pretend every day to be okay with clients [playing] out their worst fantasies on me…”. She turned to drugs to numb herself, as many do – research suggests that substance abuse is often a response to the trauma of selling sex, a coping mechanism to “dissociate from reality to survive” the days (the majority of women in one study increased drug use while in prostitution). Another survivor, “Jerri,” put it this way: “Everything is so raw, so hurting, that even though I knew the drugs would destroy me, I still used them to self-medicate.”. These are not isolated anecdotes; they reflect a broader truth that unwanted sexual activity – even if ostensibly consented to for money – wreaks havoc on mental health. As the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation succinctly stated, “Unwanted sex – even when it is compensated and ‘chosen’ – usually causes harm.” It is simply not possible for most humans to compartmentalize their body and soul that way without ill effects.

Even sugar babies who avoid overt violence or obvious trauma often end up deeply isolated and empty. The lifestyle itself is alienating. They exist in a sort of gray zone – not in normal relationships, often lying to family or friends about what they’re doing, unable to form genuine romantic connections because their needs for intimacy are entangled with monetary transactions. Many report feeling “so alone and so sad” even as they continue taking money. Loneliness comes both from the secrecy and stigma (you can’t exactly broadcast that you’re sleeping with a man triple your age for rent money and expect others to understand), and from the internal dissonance. These women cannot be fully known or loved for who they are in these arrangements – they are valued only for a role they play. Thus, even when physically accompanied by a sugar daddy or basking in attention, they might feel profoundly alone inside. They have alienated themselves from their own authentic emotions in order to function in the role. Psychologists call this “self-alienation” – the person loses sight of where their performative persona ends and their true self begins. Eve’s chilling statement “I was doing sex work long before I realized I was a sex worker” speaks to that gradual erosion of self-awareness and boundaries. Her line “before I even realised what was happening, my boundaries had been pushed” highlights how the slow creep of compromise can lead someone to lose their internal compass. You normalize one transgression of your comfort zone, then the next, until one day you don’t recognize the person in the mirror (perhaps literally, given the surgeries and heavy makeup) or the things you’re doing.

Anxiety is another constant companion. Sugar babies must always be on guard – negotiating payments, worrying about their safety on secret meet-ups, fearing exposure, juggling lies, competing with other younger or prettier entrants. The English Collective of Prostitutes noted how as more women enter sex work (as happened during the UK cost-of-living crisis), competition drives many to take greater risks or do acts they’d normally refuse. This creates chronic stress. One sugar baby, Lou, described thinking it would be easy but finding out “Jesus Christ was I wrong! A lot of the men want to scam you or they want to have sex with you,” and she quickly became overwhelmed by the hazards. Experienced sugar babies talk of the minefield of “unscrupulous men” in the scene and how newcomers often “don’t realise the risks or dangers” until it’s too late. This environment of mistrust (is he going to cheat me? hurt me? will I get caught by someone I know? etc.) fosters intense anxiety and hyper-vigilance. Even outside of meetups, these women often live double lives – worried that employers or family might discover their secret, worried about their online photos spreading, etc. The cognitive load is immense.

Over time, many sugar babies and sex workers develop a form of learned helplessness or despair. They feel “trapped” in the life, as Esperanza said. Financial entanglement plays a role – some get used to the income and structure their lives around it, losing other career opportunities in the process. Others accumulate trauma which undermines their confidence to re-enter normal jobs or relationships (who will hire me with this gap in my resume? how do I date someone my own age after years of distrust with men?). The longer they stay, the more they feel they can’t get out, a phenomenon also seen in traditional prostitution. And as they age, many sugar daddies unceremoniously dump them for younger replacements, leaving them without even the unstable arrangement they once had. What then? The woman is older, possibly without savings (a lot of that “easy money” gets spent as fast as it comes or is needed for basic expenses), and with psychological scars. This is the bleak future many face. Far from being set up for life, a lot of sugar babies end up back at square one or worse, with wasted years and damaged mental health.

The self-worth of these women takes a beating. Initially, some might feel a confidence boost – the superficial ego high of having wealth and attention. One TikTok sugar baby insisted “it did wonders for my self-esteem” to have men pay for her. But this is likely transient. Over time, many realize the attention was never for them, only for the fantasy image they represented. It’s profoundly depressing to realize you were valued not as a person, but as an object or service. As one Medium author wrote, “When money enters the equation, the power dynamic shifts… it reinforces the idea that women’s bodies are commodities, available to those who can afford them.” Women internalize that idea too – they come to see themselves as commodities. This can lead to a kind of existential despair: if my only currency in life is my looks/sex, and that inevitably fades, what meaning does my life have? Such thoughts are not uncommon. And indeed, some studies have found high rates of suicidal ideation among women in the sex trade (one integrative review found around 22.8% reported suicidal thoughts). The lifestyle’s nihilistic ethos (“nothing is sacred, everything’s for sale”) can easily tip someone into feeling that life itself is void of higher purpose or genuine connection, which is a core of existential despair.

We should also note the impact on their ability to form real relationships and families (which we’ll explore more in the societal section). Emotionally, after years of regarding relationships as transactional, many find it difficult to trust or bond normally. They may carry guilt or shame that makes them withdraw even from friendships. Intimacy might trigger trauma responses if it reminds them of past unwanted experiences. The damage to one’s capacity to love and be loved is heartbreaking – an “empowered” sugar baby might wake up at 30 or 35, money spent, youth fading, and realize she has no deep bonds, no partner, maybe no children if she wanted them, and feels used up. This loneliness is the antithesis of the “freedom” she was promised. It is a tragic irony: chasing a life of superficial pleasure and independence often leads to profound loneliness and dependence (on substances, on constant external validation, etc.).

Even those who exit the lifestyle face a tough road. Society can be cruel; women with a history in sex work often face stigma that affects future relationships or careers if known. And internally, many struggle with shame once they are out of the self-justification bubble. At the time, they might suppress moral doubts by telling themselves it’s fine, everyone does it, they are strong enough. But later, some report feeling intense shame or regret for what they did. That burden can haunt them. It’s important to clarify: the shame should not be theirs – the shame should belong to the society that drove them to it and the men who exploited them. Yet human psychology doesn’t always work fairly; individuals often carry the guilt even when they were the victim of circumstance.

In summary, the mental landscape of women in this sugar/doll/prostitution world is often one of quiet misery behind the curated smiles. Their condition has been described as a form of “spiritual emptiness” – a term that captures the loss of meaning and self that occurs. They are living contrary to their authentic values (few if any little girls dream of becoming a rich man’s accessory; it’s something they rationalize later). They sacrifice personal growth – time they could have spent developing skills, education, a career, real love – and instead live a lie for material gain. This leaves a void of purpose. Many sugar babies of the 2020s will likely look back and weep at the years wasted in what was essentially a gilded cage.

The Breakdown of Family and Community: A Nihilistic Society

Zooming out from the individual, the rise of this decadent trend bodes ill for the broader fabric of society. When large numbers of young people embrace or accept such transactional, value-less relationships, the ripple effects touch family formation, demographics, and community cohesion. We are witnessing, in real time, a collapse of meaningful relationships and authentic community values in favor of a hyper-individualistic, hedonistic social model. The sugar baby phenomenon is both a symptom and accelerant of this collapse.

One obvious macro consequence is the decline in marriage and birth rates. Across the world, developed societies are seeing people pair up less and reproduce less. There are multiple factors, but commentators increasingly note a “relationship recession” – more people remaining single or in short-term flings, which is directly linked to falling birth rates. In the United States, for example, marriages are at record lows and the fertility rate has sunk to about 1.7 births per woman, well below replacement. Similar or worse trends exist in Europe and parts of Asia. Turkey, the focal country for our analysis, has also seen its birth rate decline in recent years amid social and economic upheaval. How does the sugar culture play into this? By eroding the appeal and viability of stable partnerships. If a segment of young women find it preferable (or necessary) to serve as short-term arm-candy for older men rather than build a life with someone their age, that directly undercuts the formation of couples that would marry and raise children. Likewise, many sugar daddies are married men who are effectively diverting resources and energy away from their families toward indulgence with younger mistresses. Some may even abandon or delay starting families because they find it easier to pay for casual companionship. The entire ethos prizes immediate gratification over long-term commitment – that inevitably leads to fewer families formed. As the Financial Times wrote, “a rise in the number of single people is becoming a key driver of falling birth rates.” We are moving toward a society of atomized individuals pursuing personal pleasure and status symbols in lieu of building families and communities.

This isn’t mere sentimentalism; it has concrete implications. Nations like Japan or South Korea that have extremely low birth rates are already grappling with aging populations and a fraying social contract. Many analysts point to young people’s reluctance or inability to form stable relationships as a major cause – porn, virtual relationships, and possibly sugar-style dynamics are factors in that. For instance, if men can get sexual fulfillment via paid arrangements or online content, and women can get financial stability via “dates” rather than marriages, both sexes may increasingly opt out of the hard work of real relationships. But that hard work – partnering, raising children, contributing to the next generation – is what sustains a society. Remove it, and you get a kind of demographic and moral winter.

Furthermore, widespread acceptance of these transactional norms breeds cynicism and mistrust between genders at large. It reinforces the most jaded view each sex can have of the other: men come to see women as mercenary and manipulative (because they encounter those who seemingly only want their money), and women see men as exploitative pigs (because they meet those who only value them for youth/looks). This poisons the well for genuine companionship. When the narrative “everyone is using everyone” prevails, how can trust and mutual respect flourish? Already we see popular discourse coarsened – terms like “gold-digger,” “whore,” “simp” get thrown around, reflecting a toxic battle of the sexes. The sugar culture adds fuel to that fire. It’s no surprise that some men react by withdrawing (the “men going their own way” or “incel” phenomena) or by doubling down on sexist attitudes, and some women respond with misandry or exploitative tactics. The middle ground of love, cooperation, and building a life together is shrinking in the public imagination.

We should also consider the community level impact. Traditionally, strong communities were built on families and shared values of dignity, responsibility, and reciprocity. In a community, people contribute to each other not for immediate payment but out of solidarity or love. The commodification of relationships undermines that spirit. If everything is just a transaction, the very idea of community – a network of mutual support not mediated by money – fades away. One could argue we’re seeing a broader nihilistic value spread: a belief that nothing is inherently sacred or meaningful, that all is material and for sale. The sugar baby trend both springs from and reinforces nihilism. These young women often profess not to believe in true love or to scoff at the idea of sacrificing for others; they focus on themselves because that’s what the surrounding culture has taught them to do (in stark contrast to previous generations who, for all their flaws, often emphasized family and community obligations). The older men likewise are living in a moral vacuum – chasing pleasure, avoiding the deeper duties of mentoring youth or caring for family beyond writing a check. Each such arrangement is a closed circuit of selfishness.

Historically, one sees parallels in periods of societal decline. The late Roman Empire, for instance, was described by some historians (and moralists) as having fallen into decadence: elites indulged in orgies and concubines while civic virtue eroded. A famous line by the Roman historian Livy captures a society at crisis: “We can endure neither our vices nor the remedies needed to cure them.” It speaks to a populace so mired in excess and corruption that they cannot correct course. Similarly, observers of Weimar Germany in the 1920s noted the explosion of prostitution, cabaret decadence, and moral ambivalence in Berlin and other cities. Conservative critics at the time decried it as a period of “moral decline” that weakened the nation. Indeed, the perception (rightly or wrongly) of societal degeneracy was seized upon by the Nazi movement as justification for their brutal “cleansing” – a horrific outcome in its own right. The lesson there is not that the Nazis were correct (they were monstrously not), but that extremes of decadence can provoke extremes of backlash. When mainstream institutions appear to champion moral rot as normal, it can drive desperate publics into the arms of dangerous reactionaries promising to restore order. We should be careful – already, some authoritarian and extremist voices around the world gain traction by pointing to things like sugar culture or OnlyFans as symbols of Western decay that must be stamped out. They are wrong to curtail freedoms, but not entirely wrong that there is decay.

Even setting aside political backlash, the internal collapse of a society too far down this path is a concern. A society needs a certain amount of social trust and cohesion to function – people need to believe in something greater, whether it’s family, nation, a moral code, a future to work towards. The sugar baby ethos posits nothing greater than individual gratification and survival. It is almost a form of social Darwinism: everyone fending for themselves, using whatever assets they have (beauty, wealth, etc.) to get ahead. This fosters competition over cooperation. We see that even within the sugar community: experienced sugar babies lament that the scene is flooded with new girls who don’t know their “worth,” driving prices down and letting men take advantage. It’s an environment of every woman for herself, hardly a sisterhood. Contrast that with, say, a community where women collectively push for better education or support each other in business – those are empowering, cooperative endeavors that improve society. The sugar trend by contrast is atomizing and regressive. It does nothing to challenge why these women have fewer opportunities; it just tells them to capitalize on what patriarchy values in them. It also does nothing to hold men accountable to be better humans; it just offers them an easy outlet for baser instincts.

There is also a dire economic implication long-term: if more young people forgo building stable households, consumer economies and social safety nets suffer. Birth rate declines mean fewer workers next generation and strain on pension systems. When young men drop out of the workforce (some may if they find getting a girlfriend too hard and just retreat into video games and porn) or young women drop career ambitions (because they rely on sugar daddies short-term), you lose productivity and innovation. While this trend is niche now, the attitude behind it – a kind of fatalistic “get what you can now, there is no future” – is creeping into broader Gen Z culture, especially in places with economic malaise like Turkey. That cynicism and disillusionment spells trouble for any nation’s progress. A Turkish youth who sees only corruption and collapse at home might easily conclude that selling herself or chasing quick money is the rational choice, because the collective future looks dim. Multiply that mindset, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of decline.

Moral decay is a loaded term, but in a fundamental sense it means the loss of common values that encourage healthy, forward-looking behavior. The phenomenon of surgically crafting dolls to sell to johns is prima facie evidence of moral decay. It signifies that our collective values have skewed so far that dignity, self-restraint, and mutual respect have been supplanted by objectification, instant gratification, and selfishness. Even many who don’t participate have come to shrug it off – “it’s their choice/life” – a kind of moral apathy. That apathy is part of the rot. Historically, cultures that endured did so by renewing their values when challenged. Today, much of the West (and Westernized pockets elsewhere) seems unable to even name this trend as negative – political correctness and fear of offending prevent frank discussion. But facts speak: when half of under-30s say they’d consider an OnlyFans account over a regular job, when teen girls measure their worth in cosmetic filler and sugar daddy cash, when older men proudly chase women young enough to be granddaughters, something is deeply broken.

If we continue down this road, the future is a dystopia of profound alienation: men and women barely forming real bonds, children not born or raised in unstable settings, people increasingly treating each other as means to an end. Some might argue that’s already here. But it can get worse. We could see the “sugar baby/sugar daddy” dynamic morph into an even more predatory form – perhaps formalized sexual economic arrangements due to persistent inequality (e.g., marriage rates could further plummet and be replaced by escort-like relationships as norm). We could see the state having to intervene when birth rates fall too low (some countries already consider incentives for people to marry/have kids). In the worst case, history suggests extreme pendulum swings: a society too decadent can open the door to a harsh counter-regime (be it religious fundamentalism or authoritarianism) that imposes draconian “morality” by force. That is a nightmare scenario, but not unthinkable if the current liberal order is perceived to have failed utterly at maintaining social sanity.

Thus, the sugar baby phenomenon is not just a quirky fad; it is one front in a larger war for the soul of the next generation. Will we drift into a hyper-commodified, nihilistic future where intimacy is dead and each person is an island? Or will we recognize the urgent need to restore values of respect, love, and human dignity? The warning signs are flashing bright red. Societies that allowed all values to be measured in gold have historically not survived or thrived. We ignore this lesson at our peril.

Historical Parallels and Lessons: Decline is Not Inevitable

History may not repeat exactly, but it often rhymes. The current spectacle of Gen Z women turned plastic courtesans for wealthy patrons evokes parallels with other eras of decadence – and offers lessons on where this path leads if unchecked. One obvious parallel, as discussed, is late Rome. As the Roman Empire grew rich and complacent, traditional virtues gave way to extravagance and moral laxity among the elite. Edward Gibbon, in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, famously cited “the decline of Rome’s civic virtue” and the corrosive effects of luxury and corruption internally. Some later writers overstated the role of “moral decay” in Rome’s fall (barbarian invasions and economic woes were primary), but the perception even at the time was that Rome had lost its way. Roman satirists like Juvenal lampooned the degeneration: the rampant prostitution, the abandonment of family duties, the obsession with feasts and orgies. The Roman historian Livy, writing earlier, already lamented a Rome on a downward plunge “to the present time, when we can endure neither our vices nor their cure.” That phrase, as noted, resonates strongly today. We see the vices – for example, the commodification of sex and youth – but society seems unable or unwilling to truly confront them (the “cure” would require a moral recommitment that many aren’t ready for). The lesson from Rome is not simplistic “immorality caused collapse,” but rather that internal rot weakened societal resilience. When hard times came (plagues, economic crises, invasions), a populace used to decadence and lacking social solidarity was ill-equipped to band together and sacrifice for the common good.

Another parallel is Weimar Germany (1919-1933), the interwar period of German history known for its cultural ferment and also for its decadence amid economic turbulence. Berlin in the 1920s became a hotspot of sexual liberation: cabarets featured open homosexuality, transgender performers, and erotic shows; prostitution was widespread and often visible; the arts celebrated themes of vice and satire of conventional morality. To many, Berlin seemed the epitome of “Divine Decadence,” to quote a phrase from the musical Cabaret. However, German conservatives and many average citizens outside the big cities were appalled, viewing Weimar culture as a “period of moral decline and social degeneration”. They blamed it for eroding German strength. This clash between the urbane decadence and traditional sentiment was one factor the Nazis exploited, railing against “Weimar degeneracy” and promising a return to wholesome values (in their case twisted into racist, brutal form). The lesson from Weimar is two-fold: economic collapse and moral drift together can destabilize a society. Germany’s hyperinflation and later Depression bred desperation; some women in that era reportedly turned to prostitution to survive, just as today economic crises push women into sex work. Combined with a sense of cultural disorientation (old norms gone, new norms not solid), it created fertile ground for extremist solutions. The horrifying outcome – Nazi tyranny – was arguably worse than the problem it “solved.” We should heed that warning: if we do not address today’s issues (like the exploitation of young women and the breakdown of values) through reasoned, humane reform, we risk reactionary forces doing it by force.

History also provides positive lessons – societies that pulled back from the brink. One example could be the Victorian era in Britain. In the late 18th century, British society had high levels of public drunkenness, prostitution (especially in Georgian London), and what some saw as moral laxity among elites. The Victorian 19th century saw a conscious revival of public morality – movements for temperance, re-emphasis on family, and a kind of prudishness that, while overdone in some respects, did help reduce certain social ills. Prostitution didn’t vanish, but it was stigmatized enough that many sought other paths. That society invested heavily in institutions like schools, churches, charities – all reinforcing community and values. Britain in that era became more stable and globally dominant, arguably aided by its social cohesion and work ethic which were tied to that moral framework. Now, one can critique Victorian hypocrisy or rigidity, but the point is they self-corrected away from an edge. Today’s correction need not be in the mold of Victorian religiosity, but it likely requires a reassertion of some fundamental values: that human beings have inherent dignity; that not everything should be monetized; that sexuality is meaningful and best expressed with mutual respect and commitment; that men and women are partners in society, not exploiter and exploited; and that youth and beauty are not commodities to be spent, but phases of life to be cherished wholesomely.

Another instructive case: post-communist Eastern Europe in the 1990s saw an explosion of trafficking and “sugar daddy” arrangements (often rich Westerners exploiting desperate local women) during the wild-west capitalism phase. Over time, as those societies stabilized and integrated with Europe, they implemented more laws against trafficking, built up civil society, and in many places saw those extreme phenomena recede (though not disappear). It shows that strong legal frameworks and economic opportunities can help curb the worst exploitation. Turkey today, in economic freefall, could take a lesson: if and when it recovers financially, it must invest in protections and opportunities for young people, lest an entire generation be lost to nihilistic pursuits. If the state and society provide dignified alternatives – jobs, affordable education, social respect for hard work – fewer women will feel compelled to sell themselves. And cultural leadership (be it religious institutions, intellectuals, or community elders) must speak against the hollow empowerment narrative and reassert the value of character over superficial glamour.

In conclusion, history teaches that decadence is a choice, not a destiny. Societies can tolerate it and decline, or recognize it as a warning sign and reform. The phenomenon of Gen Z “plastic sugar babies” is a blaring alarm of social decay, one that should galvanize us to action. The lessons from Rome, Weimar, and others is that waiting too long or ignoring the problem leads to catastrophe – be it collapse or violent upheaval. But if addressed head-on – through frank social discourse, education that fosters true self-worth, economic changes that give youth real prospects, and yes, a moral reawakening that rejects the commodification of human beings – then this trend can be reversed. The present path is unsustainable: as individuals, it’s leading young women (and men) into despair; as a society, it’s leading us into demographic and spiritual decline.

We must not let this nihilism become the new normal. History’s cautionary tales abound, but so do stories of renewal. The task now is to rescue a generation from the dollhouse of degeneracy and bring them back into the real world of human connection, purpose, and dignity. It will require courage – to speak unpopular truths against the chorus of “anything goes” – and compassion, to provide exits and support for those already ensnared. But the alternative is a future too bleak to accept: a hollow society of lonely, anxious individuals, a demographic death spiral, and perhaps the eventual implosion of social order itself. We owe it to the young women being lured by this mirage of “freedom” to tell them the truth and offer them better. We owe it to ourselves to uphold the values that make life worth living – love, family, community, and self-respect – and to declare that no amount of money can replace them.

Conclusion: The phenomenon of “plastic doll” sugar babies is not empowering or normal or inevitable – it is a toxic outgrowth of a society adrift in materialism and moral relativism. It represents the exploitation of the vulnerable under a cynical rebranding, the reduction of young women to ornamental commodities for the rich, and the erosion of virtues that bind society together. We have explored in detail the psychological wreckage it leaves – the loneliness, trauma, and emptiness behind the Instagram filters – and the broader social wreckage – collapsing trust, birth rates, and values. There is no sugar-coating this reality: it is depraved and decadent, and it heralds decline if not confronted.

Let this report serve as a clarion call. We must reject the facile narratives of “choice” that glorify this rot, and instead speak with moral clarity: a culture that pimps out its young women, literally or figuratively, has lost its way. The answer is not a reactionary panic or authoritarian crackdown, but a determined, collective effort to restore sanity and soul to our society. That means supporting girls to develop skills and self-esteem that don’t depend on looks or male approval, celebrating women (and men) for achievements and character rather than appearance, making economic reforms so that no one is driven to sex work out of hunger, and yes – unapologetically criticizing those who glamorize self-objectification as “empowerment.” Feminism was meant to uplift women, not feed them to a new form of patriarchal hunger under a trendy hashtag.

If we do nothing, we are choosing for ourselves and our children a world bereft of authentic human warmth, a cold marketplace where everything is for sale and nothing is sacred. But if we heed the warning and course-correct, we can stop this “rot” and perhaps even look back one day on this bizarre sugar baby craze as a cautionary tale of a temporary madness we overcame. The clock is ticking. For every Ruby or Eve who bravely speaks out after escaping, a hundred younger “lambs” are lining up for slaughter on TikTok, blind to the risks. It is up to society – to all of us – to sound the alarm and change the conditions that foster this decay.

No amount of political correctness or trendy rhetoric should stop us from telling the truth: The sugar baby/plastic surgery bimbo trend is a reflection of profound social failure. It exploits women, corrodes their identity, and exemplifies moral decadence. It does not liberate – it ensnares. It does not empower – it dehumanizes. It is a sign of a society consuming its youth and calling it progress. History will judge us by whether we confronted this ugly reality or celebrated it. Let us choose the path of confronting it, of reclamation of true empowerment (through self-respect, education, real economic empowerment) and of reaffirming that some things are not for sale – least of all the bodies and souls of our young women.

In the end, a society’s greatness is measured not in how lavishly the rich can indulge vices, but in how it nurtures the next generation to live with dignity, purpose, and connection. By that measure, we are failing right now. But we can, and must, turn it around. The alternative is an accelerating march into moral and social darkness, and that road – as we have every reason to know – leads nowhere anyone should want to go.

Sources:

• Livy, History of Rome, on societal decline
• Women’s Health Magazine – Gen Z cosmetic surgery statistics and social media influence
• SoraNews24 – Case study of “living Barbie” surgery obsession
• Glamour UK – Sugar baby TikTok glamorization vs reality (Ruby and Eve testimonies)
• Reuters/Foundation – UK cost-of-living driving women to sex work (30% jump, desperation)
• Reuters – Turkey’s economic crisis increasing vulnerability of sex workers (85% inflation)
• Academia study – OnlyFans in Turkey, youth unemployment driver
• Glamour UK – “lambs to slaughter” quote on TikTok grooming teens
• Harvard Crimson – Op-ed claiming sugar baby as feminist, demanding payment as sticking it to patriarchy
• Babe.net – Critique of “feminist sugar baby” myth as deflection, commodification noted
• Medium (Michelle Angkasa) – False empowerment of OnlyFans, economic necessity not empowerment
• Medium (Mj Emmanuella) – Sex work as Trojan horse empowerment, patriarchal norms reinforced
• CAASE report – Mental health impacts: 68% depression, “Unwanted sex causes harm”
• Glamour UK – Sugar baby false sense of power, daddies think they own you
• Refinery29 – TikTok sugar baby school, huge hashtag views (530M+), normalizing lifestyle, comments from tempted viewers
• Refinery29 – Economic reasons since 2020: Eva and Lou stories (doing it to survive pandemic economy)
• Financial Times via snippet – Rise in singles driving birth rate decline
• Newsweek – Global decline in marriages and births, US fertility at historic low
• Revisionworld – Weimar perceived as period of moral decline by critics
• Tomorrow’s World (referencing historians) – Moral decay often cited in Rome’s decline
• Glamour UK – Eve’s PTSD from sugar dating assaults, consent seen as void under payment
• Glamour UK – TikTok allows sugar content while banning explicit sex work content
• Sugarbook blog – Encouraging sugar babies to consider plastic surgery to attract men
• CSE Institute – Glamorization of sugar dating hides increased risk of harm
• Newport Institute – Social media increasing narcissism and addiction in Gen Z, young adults most narcissistic age group
• Translated voices of survivors (Esperanza, Jerri) – feeling trapped, alone, self-medicating to cope
• Livy via Wikiquote/BrainyQuote – “We can endure neither our vices nor the remedies”
• (Additional citations given inline above)