Can the sponsor expect a return of their money/goods if sex is not provided?
The answer to that is no, which is why I draw the distinction.
The answer to that is no, which is why I draw the distinction.
People can expect anything in any circumstances, but even with traditional prostitution (except, of course, where it is legal and therefore legal contract enforcement is available) you don't get your money back if the seller fails to provide sex. So you can't really use that to draw the line, since a "no" answer would make sugar babies exactly like (illegal) prostitutes.
Not that there aren't men who sign up to a sugar baby site, date much younger very attractive girls, pay them, and don't have sex with them. I'm sure that exists too, but only because the client really doesn't want that service.
1) Girl immediately exchanges sex for goods/cash (rarest)
2) Girl makes a sexual exchange after a courting period (most common)
3) Guy isn't interested in sex but a female companion for emotional support
4) Girl is pretending like she does #2 but actually drops off after courting period
5) Girl is actually doing #2 but the guy is too creepy
There is an element of consent involved because of the delay and indirect aspect of monetary exchange. Many sugar babies will question what differs them from traditional girlfriends other than that they are clear about how the relationship progresses.
Prostitutes can consent. They aren't /obligated/ to have sex with you just because you have $400 in hand. If they are, they're being coerced/trafficked and that is very clearly morally not OK.
Questioning the difference is another justification for the "I'm not really a prostitute" self-deception. Anyone that can't tell the difference between a sugar and normal relationship either has never /had/ a real relationship or is deeply materialistic to their core.
I think not being able to expect a return of your payment is because of the illegality of the exchange, not because the exchange is for something different altogether.