Cross-Generational Sex Relationships (CGSR) are relationships between a young girl or boy and a partner who is usually 10 or more years older than them (Recio, 2021; Stice, 2021). CGSR is a growing cultural phenomenon, that seems to be gaining attention and becoming an issue of interest among researchers and policymakers due to its social, psychological, and economic implications. The phenomenon has been perceived to be increasingly common on educational campuses as a result of technological development (Nayar, 2017; Stice 2021).
This article aimed to present information about tertiary students’: comprehension of the term “cross-generational sex relationships,”; attitudes towards these relationships; the practice of CGSR; knowledge about reasons for engaging or non-engagement in CGSR; involvement in such relationships; knowledge about the benefits and risks associated with CGSR; with the hope that the information would offer valuable insight into the phenomenon in tertiary institutions.
The study was conducted using a cross-sectional survey design with a quantitative approach. Using the convenience sampling technique, data was collected from 200 undergraduate students in the tertiary institution using a structured online survey. Data were analyzed quantitatively using SPSS Version 26.0, and the results were presented using frequency distribution tables, graphs, and pie charts.
The demographic profile of respondents revealed: an equal distribution of students by gender; students’ ages ranged from 20 to 30 years with an average age of 22 years. A little over a third of respondents (45%) were in their final year (Level 400). About 55% of respondents studied the Humanities. Most respondents were single (86%), Christians (92%) and 62% were residential students.
Although these terms were synonymous, respondents were more conversant with the term sugar daddy/mummy relationships (89%) (SDMR) than cross-generational sexual relationships (CGSR) (39%). Names used to describe elderly males in such relationships included: Odogwu, Zaddy, Sugar Daddies, and Bomber while the elderly females were referred to as Big Mama, Sweet Mommie, and Sugar Mummies among others. The younger females engaged in this relationship were referred to as side chicks, sugar babies, or bae while the males were referred to as toy boys or bae.
It was interesting to note that only 9% admitted they were involved in this kind of relationship, with relatively short dating experiences (i.e. a year or less). This finding is contrary to studies by Gukurume, 2022; Nayar, 2017; Stice, 2021), who realised CGSR was a common feature in tertiary institutions in Africa and beyond. This low acceptance level of the practice was mainly due to the Ghanaian culture that frowned especially on females involved in this kind of relationship. Such females were perceived as promiscuous thus it was not surprising respondents were reluctant to divulge their involvement in this sexual relationship. Amo-Adjei et al., (2014) explained further that CGSRs were normally concealed from society (including family and friends) for fear of reprimand, stigmatization, discrimination, and name-calling. They opened up about this relationship only to people they trusted for a sense of security (Kit, Ying & Zhooriyati, 2022).
Respondents derived information about CGSR from a variety of sources presented in descending order as follows: social media, internet, television, friends or peers, school, dating sites, books, radio, parents, family members, and the church. Some of these dating sites were: Locanto, Tinder, Bumble, and Jodel. Those peculiar to Ghana were: Facebook page for Ghana sugar mummy and daddies’ connection; www.sugardaddy ghana.com, asetanateam@gmail. com, and www.sugarmummyghana.com among others.
This minority of respondents gave varied reasons why they were involved in CGSR. Interestingly, the primary reason cited for their involvement was not for love but for financial or economic gains. These respondents explained due to insufficient financial resources to meet their school needs and their new lifestyle, they had to engage in CGSR. Financial reasons were also corroborated in other studies as a core reason for engaging in CGSR (Amo – Adjei et al., 2014; Dunkle et. al., 2010; Hoss & Blokland, 2018; Recio, 2021). Other reasons indicated by the minority of respondents for involvement in CGSR were: poverty, fun/recreation, experiencing a luxurious life, gaining status, and enjoying gifts (e.g. latest mobile phones, laptops, designer clothes, and occasionally fuel coupons).
The majority who were not involved in CGSR (91%) explained they abstained from it for the following reasons in descending order: their moral standards (72%), their upbringing (70%), personal beliefs (64%), religious beliefs (62%), parental disapproval (57%), sickening idea (53%), societal disapproval (46%) and fear of its implications (45%).
Seventy – five percent (75%) and 60% of respondents respectively were well-informed about the benefits and risks of CGSR. They explained the benefits include: financial benefits/ economic survival (83%), acquisition of gifts (83%), academic opportunities (6%), Job opportunities (6%), networking (6%), gain status (4%), sexual gratification (4%), companionship (1%) in descending order. These benefits were also realized in similar studies (Amo-Adjei et al., 2014; Gukurume, 2022; Kaufman et al., 2001; Luke & Kurz, 2002; Mojola, 2014; Stice, 2021).
In terms of the risks associated with CGSR however, respondents indicated: health challenges (e.g. STIs like HIV/AIDs) (39%); stigmatization that ruins reputation and status (15%); abuse (13%); lack of freedom (13%); abandonment (10%); pregnancy (10%); bad future relationships/cheating/adultery (6%); poor academic performance (3%) and waste of time (3%0 as examples of these risks. Knowledge about these risks indicated by respondents was corroborated in studies by Bantebya et. al., (2014), Bhana & Pattman (2011), Gukurume, (2022), Hoss and Blokland, (2018), Phillips, (2022), Rosheena, (2018) and Stice, (2021).
An assessment of respondents’ overall attitude towards CGSR revealed that 46% felt CGSR was bad (i.e. negative attitude); 45% had an indifferent or neutral attitude while 9% felt this kind of relationship was good (positive attitude). Those who indicated there was a positive attitude were those engaging in CGSR.
The study tested three hypotheses using the chi-square test. The first hypothesis assessed the relationship between age and involvement in CGSR and it was accepted because no statistically significant relationship between these two study variables was realized (x2 = 4.870, df = 3, p = 0.182). The second hypothesis tested the relationship between respondents’ gender and involvement in CGSR and it was also accepted because no statistically significant relationship between these variables was identified (x2 = 1.067, df = 1, p = 0.302). However, the third hypothesis that tested the relationship between respondents’ attitude and involvement in CGSR was rejected because a statistically significant relationship between these variables was identified (x2 = 20.106, df = 2, p = 0.000).
The study concluded that although these terms were synonymous, relatively more respondents were aware of SDMR than CGSR. Their main source of CGSR information was social media. They gave varied reasons for involvement and non-involvement in CGSR. The majority of respondents also had knowledge about the benefits and risks associated with CGSR. Only a minority of respondents had a positive attitude towards CGSR.
Based on the findings of the study, it was recommended that the results serve as baseline data for relevant stakeholders (e.g. University Authorities, Student Representative Council, Family and Consumer Sciences Students Association among others) to sensitize tertiary students, especially about the risks involved in CGSR. Further studies could also be conducted at lower levels of education (i.e. secondary and basic levels of education) to assess the prevalence and their knowledge about this phenomenon. This would add more literature to the discourse about CGSR.
Authors;
Cynthia Gadegbeku, Seraphine Arku & Caroline Narkie Mensah, Jessica Senam Amedeka, Millicent Emefa Agboado & Daisie Ashley.
