AEGiS-15IAC: The myths and facts about 'sugar daddies': Age differences and sexual behavior among men and their female partners

AEGiS-15IAC: The myths and facts about 'sugar daddies': Age differences and sexual behavior among men and their female partners - Harare, Zimbabwe.

15th International AIDS Conference

Bangkok, Thailand - July 11-16, 2004

The myths and facts about 'sugar daddies': Age differences and sexual behavior among men and their female partners - Harare, Zimbabwe.

Int Conf AIDS 2004 Jul 11-16; 15:(abstract no. TuOrC1152)

Jain S, Fritz K, Woelk G, Chirowodza A, Makumbe K, McFarland WC
San Francisco Department of Public Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, San Francisco, United States

BACKGROUND: Although undefined and minimally referenced in the literature, anecdotal reports contend that 'sugar daddies' are widespread and contribute to high HIV prevalence among young women.

METHODS: To establish a working definition of sugar daddies and characterize their demographic and risk profile, data were examined from a cross-sectional survey of 1313 men recruited at beerhalls in Harare, Zimbabwe. Sampling used a randomized, venue-day-time method developed by CDC for behavioral surveillance. The questionnaire included partner-by-partner age, relationship type, and sexual behavior.

RESULTS: Of 1313 men, median age was 30 years, 48.3% had >1 partner during the previous 6 months, and 28.9% ever gave cash or goods for sex. On average, men were 6.8, 5.7, 4.8, and 3.6 years older than their wives, steady partners, casual partners, and 'one-night stands', respectively. Overall, 208 (15.8%) men had non-wife partners >10 years younger; 80 of these (6.1% of all men) were with a female partner<20 years of age; and 33 of these (2.5% of all men) involved giving cash or goods for sex. We defined sugar daddies as men with a non-wife, teenage partner, at least 10 years younger. In multivariate analysis, sugar daddies were more likely to be aged 29-38 years (OR=5.2; 95% CI:3.1-8.8), divorced or separated (OR=2.7; 95% CI:1.4-5.1), give cash or goods for sex (OR=6.2; 95% CI:3.6-10.8), and have at least 3 unprotected sex partners (OR=3.1; 95% CI:1.7-5.8) compared with non-sugar daddies. However, sugar daddies were not more likely to be HIV positive, have higher incomes, or be professionals. Conclusion Although data in this report are limited to beerhall patrons, the prevalence of sugar daddies appears lower than popular perception contends. Age differences between men and their female partners have important implications for sustaining generalized HIV epidemics. Prevention efforts addressing the age gap should be based on epidemiological data and not myths or misperceptions.

Keywords: AEGIS, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Partners, Prevalence, HIV Infections, Cross-Sectional Studies, HIV Seroprevalence, Gender Identity, Coitus, Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, HIV Seropositivity, HIV, HIV-1, Zimbabwe, Female, Humans, Male, Adolescence

040711
TuOrC1152