Erez Aloni

In Andrew Sean Greer’s Pulitzer-winning novel Less, protagonist Arthur Less embarks on a global journey to avoid his younger ex-lover Freddie’s wedding.¹ Through his adventures, Arthur grapples with his experiences as both the younger and older partner in age-gap relationships. This fictional journey resonates with the real-world dynamics explored in Tony Silva’s sociological study Daddies of a Different Kind: Sex and Romance Between Older and Younger Adult Gay Men. Silva examines these intergenerational relationships—especially common among same-sex male couples, who are more likely to have large age gaps than other types of pairings—and delves into the construction of the “daddy” identity, a role characterized by mentorship, age, and masculinity. His research offers a nuanced analysis of daddy-younger pairings, challenging stereotypes and revealing the emotional depth and cultural significance of these partnerships.

Silva’s research is built on the narratives of 39 men who identify as daddies and 26 younger men who were in relationships with age gaps of at least ten years. Importantly, all the interviewees were adults over 21, and the study exclusively focuses on relationships between adults. This distinction is crucial in avoiding harmful stereotypes, emphasizing instead the mutual emotional enrichment these partnerships often provide. Silva’s book seeks to answer several key questions: Why are gay men more open to such connections compared to heterosexuals or lesbian and bisexual women? What does it mean to be a “daddy,” including the forms of masculinity it involves? What is the quality of these relationships, and how do financial arrangements operate within these dynamics? Along the way, Silva addresses deeper themes such as LGBTQ+ culture, politics, nonmonogamy, and the fluid boundaries between friendship and kinship within the gay community.

The term “daddy,” as Silva explains, refers to “desirable older men, although not necessarily in a sugar daddy context, among both heterosexuals and gay and bisexual men” (P. 1). The men Silva interviewed characterize daddyness as involving three main characteristics: first, age and the stability it suggests; second, a dominant and leadership-oriented personality; and third, a mentoring role (P. 33). These characteristics align with the experiences of Arthur and his ex Freddie, who describe their relationships with older men as being shaped by mentorship and the wisdom that comes with age, reflecting the dynamics Silva uncovers. Interestingly, many of Silva’s interviewees had themselves been in age-gap relationships when they were younger, mirroring Arthur Less’s journey from being the younger partner to becoming the daddy.

One of the most compelling aspects of Silva’s work is its challenge to common misconceptions about age-gap relationships. Far from being exploitative or transactional, these bonds are often emotionally rich and involve deliberate efforts to prevent financial power imbalances from defining the partnership. For example, men in both the older and younger groups actively sought to keep finances from influencing their relationships (Pp. 48-56). While the daddies on average are wealthier and may occasionally cover expenses like dinners or vacations, the younger men often insist on maintaining their financial autonomy. Further, Silva argues that daddies play a crucial role in transmitting cultural knowledge within the gay community. These intergenerational relationships help younger men navigate the complexities of gay life, such as confronting homophobia, accessing LGBTQ+ spaces, and understanding the community’s history (Chapter 4, Pp. 92-123).

The book also provides fascinating insights into the evolving nature of masculinity for gay and bisexual men. Silva reveals that many older men in these relationships report experiencing a boost in their masculinity as they age, often tied to their roles as mentors and being desired by younger men (Chapter 5, Pp. 124-140). This finding contrasts with the more common narrative of aging as a detriment to sexual desirability and highlights the positive aspects of masculinity that these men embrace. Further, Silva provides a fresh perspective on masculinity that differs from the traditional construct of “breadwinner masculinity.” In doing so, the study contributes to the idea that masculinities are not static but develop over time, shaped by relationships, mentorship, and desire.² The daddy identity thus allows older men to maintain and even enhance their sense of masculinity, while younger men often find freedom from traditional masculine expectations in these relationships (Chapter 5, Pp. 124-140).

An unexpected finding in Silva’s work is that many age-gap pairings do not resemble classic romantic partnerships. Instead, they take the form of emotionally intimate friendships, friends-with-benefits arrangements, or ongoing sexual relationships. This broader understanding of relationships and kinships within the queer community expands even the concept of “families of choice,” which has long been central to LGBTQ+ life (Chapter 6, Pp. 141-174). Silva’s interviews reveal a spectrum of connections that defy easy categorization, illustrating the fluid boundaries between friendship, mentorship, and romantic involvement among gay and bisexual men. Unsurprisingly, many of the daddies Silva interviewed were in nonmonogamous long-term relationships alongside their connections with younger partners.

Silva’s research offers valuable insights for examining laws and policies concerning relationships among LGBTQ+ individuals as well as other relationships. One question that emerges for legal readers is whether and to what extent heteronormative-based laws are applicable to the LGBTQ+ community. For instance, how might laws designed to compensate for gendered contributions in heterosexual households apply to relationships between daddies and younger men, which often operate under different dynamics? Put differently, in laws that aim to compensate women for their unpaid contributions to the household, especially when children are involved, how should these laws apply in relationships with fundamentally different arrangements?³

Although not discussed directly in the book, Silva’s study sheds light on the unique dynamics between gay men—encompassing norms, power, connections, and practices—which differ from those in conventional heterosexual relationships. This raises important questions about the suitability of laws, often designed with heterosexual frameworks in mind, for various aspects of relationships among gay men, such as regulations around sex work, consent, and public sex.⁴ The book also provides a stark illustration of how an aging population changes partnerships dynamics and preferences over time, suggesting a need for rethinking laws applicable to relationships among older adults.⁵

Another intriguing aspect of Silva’s work is his exploration of why these age-gap relationships are particularly common among gay men. Rejecting the simplistic explanation of a limited dating pool (which fails to account for why similar patterns of significant age-gap relationships aren’t seen in lesbian and bi women’s relationships), Silva points to a broader trend of nontraditional pairing among gay men. This trend extends beyond age to include less assortative mating in terms of race and class. Unlike the more common practice of assortative mating—where people partner with those of similar background or status, often reinforcing social stratification by concentrating wealth and privilege—these diverse pairing patterns challenge such norms.⁶ The prevalence of age-gap relationships among gay men, therefore, represents not just a unique dating preference but potentially a more fluid and egalitarian approach to partnership formation.

In the wake of the marriage equality campaign, many—including myself—predicted that same-sex relationships would become more institutionalized and gender-conforming. This book proves that gay men remain pioneers in exploring nonconventional and egalitarian relationships, whether through a more equal division of unpaid domestic labor, less assortative mating, or nonmonogamy. The question now is how these qualities, which challenge traditional relationship structures, might be transferable to other forms of relationships or communities, encouraging more flexible and egalitarian partnerships across society.

Just as Arthur Less learns through his journey that love and connection often defy conventional categories—realizing that relationships are complex, unpredictable, and not bound by traditional norms—Daddies of a Different Kind reminds us that partnerships evolve, expand, and transcend societal expectations. Silva’s work not only illuminates the complexities of these intergenerational relationships but also challenges us to reconsider legal and social norms surrounding partnerships across all communities. Ultimately, both Greer’s novel and Silva’s study illustrate that love, mentorship, and companionship can take many forms, inspiring us to rethink which of our norms and laws truly protect the vulnerable, and which merely reinforce entrenched gendered assumptions.

1. Andrew Sean Greer, Less (2017).
2. For a discussion on how anti-essentialism can be applied to the study of masculinities and how men’s experiences of privilege and subordination are shaped by factors such as race, class, and sexuality, see Nancy E. Dowd, The Man Question: Male Privilege and Subordination (2010).
3. For a discussion on how gender dynamics influence the dissolution of same-sex relationships and the application of traditional family law concepts, see Suzanne A. Kim & Edward Stein, Gender in the Context of Same-Sex Divorce and Relationship Dissolution, 56 Fam. Ct. Rev. 384 (2018).
4. For an example of how existing legal frameworks fail to fully address queer-specific concerns around “public sex,” see Andrew Gilden, The Queer Limits of Revenge Porn Laws, 64 B.C. L. Rev. 801 (2022) (exploring the exclusion of sexual imagery taken in public contexts from protection under revenge porn laws).
5. For an exploration of how family law should adapt to the needs of older adults in light of increasing life expectancy, see Naomi Cahn, Clare Huntington & Elizabeth S. Scott, Family Law for the One-Hundred-Year Life, 132 Yale L.J. 1691 (2023).
6. For an in-depth discussion of how assortative mating contributes to wealth concentration and social stratification, see Erez Aloni, The Marital Wealth Gap, 93 Wash. L. Rev. 1 (2018).