Did you even read what I said?

Of course I read it. I'm insisting that there is a financial dynamic in every relationship, including vanilla (which most people would never define as "sex work"). And sex is involved in most intimate relationships, including vanilla. But simply because a relationship includes financial support for one another and sex for one another does not mean that these elements constitute the definitive core of the relationship. That's all I'm claiming.

There are several people here claiming that every sugar arrangement is sex work. I am disagreeing. For starters, not every sugar relationship is the same. Even this is, apparently, controversial.

Of course there are some "arrangements" that are straight-up escorting and then I agree that's sex work. But there are some that look very much like vanilla in every way, and yet some on this sub want to insist that it's sex work too. I'm not sure what the motivation is, but as I said, there are some extreme mental gymnastics being used to support this view and I just don't buy it.