|
I'm surprised more college girls aren't doing this...
A week ago, she boarded a plane to Florida to spend the weekend with a 30-something banker she met on SugarDaddie.com. He told her his house was undergoing a renovation and instead drove her to a nearby hotel, where they spent the night together.
"Yeah, sure, he could have been a psycho, a killer," says Jennifer over breakfast. At nine o'clock in the morning, she's in a full face of makeup. On her profile she describes herself as a yoga teacher and personal trainer. "Barring rape or death, what's the worst thing that could happen to me?"
At the end of the weekend, the man handed her 10 crisp $100 bills. They next plan to rendezvous in Orlando in August.
The ridiculousness is just ASTOUNDING it hurts my brain.
|
I think a better question is why is prostitution illegal? It's a mutually beneficial exchange..
|
|
|
On August 02 2011 12:23 Rinrun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 12:20 Slaughter wrote:
Seems like this is illegal? How does this skirt the laws of prostitution? Probably says that it's a dating site?
And they don't mention "sex" in the exchange - simply refer to it as a "companionship". What people do in their own bedroom is their business in the eye of the law (except for rape/assault).
|
"By the way, how old are you?" he asks, inching closer.
"Older than 25," I respond.
Ahahahaha.
But seriously, this sort of thing is an unfortunate side effect when the gap between the haves and the have-nots increases: the have-nots need help making ends meet, so they start offering everything they have to make it happen.
I think a better question is why is prostitution illegal? It's a mutually beneficial exchange..
As far as I know, the reason is because groups with power find it morally objectionable. Although, on the flip side, it would be a lot better for the women and clients who do so anyways to make it legal and regulated.
|
Well, they wrote the article in a fairly pleasant light, selecting people that seem to have relatively good intentions regarding the whole set-up. I'm kind of hesitant to form an opinion off of such a limited source of information, but so far:
Personally I think that this is illegal, but so is marijuana, and we all know how that's working out. I do not think this is morally wrong in most cases. Certainly there are likely to be some horror stories, but you could find the same from standard dating sites as well. In this case, everyone is going into the situation as close to completely informed as you could be.
|
Thats just...wow. I guess being old and single isn't that bad... if you money of course.
JKJK, but i really do wonder how legal this is?
|
I wish i could have the benefit of easy sex, get free money, and go to school. Just think about allt he benefits. To bad the wealth is all divided mostly among the male population.
|
E-Harmony matches people on compatibility.
Sugar Daddie matches people based on income and age (difference).
I don't think I can make a comment corrosive enough. It... it speaks for itself.
|
I am ok with that, but I am also pro prostitution so no big deal to me. Whatever two consenting adults want to do with each other is fine by me regardless of exchange of money. But I see some lawsuits incoming, maybe police raids as well. We'll see how good SugarDaddie's lawyers are.
|
Don't have a problem with it. Both parties gain from the arrangement.
|
Wasn't this titled as "Girls using Sugar Daddies" the other day or something?
Thought it was quite hilarious.
Oh, I see. It still is, but OP forgot that part. ;D
|
I guess really the effects of this depend on the woman herself. If they are okay with selling their body then this is a great opportunity for them. I think the real enemy here is student loans though.
|
|
|
Jennifer doesn't label what she's doing as prostitution. "I'm not a whore. Whores are paid by the hour, can have a high volume of clients in a given day, and it's based on money, not on who the individual actually is. There's no feeling involved and the entire interaction revolves around a sexual act," says Jennifer, who wears a $300 strapless dress purchased with money from her most recent conquest. The rest of the money, she says, went towards paying down her student loans.
"My situation is different in a number of different ways. First of all, I don't engage with a high volume of people, instead choosing one or two men I actually like spending time with and have decided to develop a friendship with them. And while sex is involved, the focus is on providing friendship. It's not only about getting paid."
This idiot is just splitting hairs with her "definition" of what a whore is. In the end, she's lying to herself to make herself feel better about what she's doing. And while she might believe what she says, others most likely will not.
|
On August 02 2011 12:33 dtvu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 12:23 Rinrun wrote:On August 02 2011 12:20 Slaughter wrote:
Seems like this is illegal? How does this skirt the laws of prostitution? Probably says that it's a dating site? And they don't mention "sex" in the exchange - simply refer to it as a "companionship". What people do in their own bedroom is their business in the eye of the law (except for rape/assault).
Not true.
If I remember correctly oral sex as well as anal is outlawed in some U.S. states.
I'm at work though so I'm not exactly going to google those terms to try and find an evidence of that claim.
|
Seen this before, will see it again, as long as tuitions are so expensive, it will never surprise me XD Hey, if I could bang some old lady to get rid of my debt I'd be on that. Literally.
|
On August 02 2011 12:20 Slaughter wrote:
Seems like this is illegal? How does this skirt the laws of prostitution?
As indicated in the article, prostitution laws are only clearly define quid pro quo exchanges of money for sex as illegal.
The reason they're so strictly defined is because otherwise we'd run into a lot of issues with murkier arrangements. After all, there's plenty of marriages and domestic partners out there who effectively exchange sex and companionship for financial support. Even when limiting the discussion to dating, there's plenty of women who look for a man to "take care of them", which works out to the same.
On August 02 2011 12:41 Tektos wrote:
Not true.
If I remember correctly oral sex as well as anal is outlawed in some U.S. states.
I'm at work though so I'm not exactly going to google those terms to try and find an evidence of that claim.
Those laws may remain on the books in some places, but would never be enforced or upheld. Such laws were struck down as unconstitutional after Lawrence v. Texas.
|
On August 02 2011 12:41 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 12:33 dtvu wrote:On August 02 2011 12:23 Rinrun wrote:On August 02 2011 12:20 Slaughter wrote:
Seems like this is illegal? How does this skirt the laws of prostitution? Probably says that it's a dating site? And they don't mention "sex" in the exchange - simply refer to it as a "companionship". What people do in their own bedroom is their business in the eye of the law (except for rape/assault). Not true. If I remember correctly oral sex as well as anal is outlawed in some U.S. states. I'm at work though so I'm not exactly going to google those terms to try and find an evidence of that claim.
It's not enforced. Even if it was, it would be declared unconstitutional.
|
On August 02 2011 12:41 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 12:33 dtvu wrote:On August 02 2011 12:23 Rinrun wrote:On August 02 2011 12:20 Slaughter wrote:
Seems like this is illegal? How does this skirt the laws of prostitution? Probably says that it's a dating site? And they don't mention "sex" in the exchange - simply refer to it as a "companionship". What people do in their own bedroom is their business in the eye of the law (except for rape/assault). Not true. If I remember correctly oral sex as well as anal is outlawed in some U.S. states. I'm at work though so I'm not exactly going to google those terms to try and find an evidence of that claim.
Not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_States
"By 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining sodomy laws were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
