The money would be tempting but yuck I could never hook up with an old man...

That is disgusting. Not even the age aspect but the fact that these girls are dating and even sleeping with married men for cash. I don't really care what the money is for (school, trips, boob jobs, whatever), nor do I buy that it's just a "mentorship" thing. This is just another version of whoring.

meh...it might not be for me, but if those involved are fully both aware of and fine with the exchange...can't pass judgment on it.
Sex has always been a commodity...

Not for me, but if it works for both parties involved then no judgement.


I could never be a sugar momma--I don't have the $

I feel like it would be cheaper and less drama just to hire the occasional hooker.

Whoops...admittedly didn't read the part about married men. Yeah....not cool. Not only for the sexual betrayal but family finances...

I'm not interesting in nailing someone when I'm not turned on. Knowing that someone is really into me is a huge turn on. Knowing that someone is using me for my money is a huge turn off.

So, all moral issues aside - it is not for me.

Edit: Oh also, I have a very hard time accepting any type of gift from anyone. I also have that "screw you, I can do it myself" attitude embedded deep inside. Being on the other side of this would not work for me either.

I was never cute enough to do it when younger. If I was, I would have been the naive dummy who thought they really meant it when they said “no sex required.” :noway:

I can't visit the site from work but a couple years ago when I looked at some of those sites when they ran a show on TV about it... a lot of the girls had something like $5,000 no sex. But in reality that's what many of those guys want.


when I first became single, I used to joke to guys who tried to approach me that I didn't need to settle for some guy bc I fully intended to overcome my financial hardship one day. If I hadn't found a good man by then, I'd just get my own sugarbaby. It would have been a very good gig for him because he really wouldn't have to worry about sex. I wouldn't just be saying that like I suspect the guys on those websites are. Just be seen at my side for events. Take me out so I'm not eating alone. Go to events. Trips here and there (separate rooms, lol, but someone to go on the shore excursions with). You probably DON'T want to say something like that to a guy unless you (as I did) wanted to run them off.

I wouldn't really do it, but the thought would be appealing if not for the fact that most of the male sugarbabies I saw back then were advertising to other men. lol!

Interesting.
So if I go to Thailand and get a 12 years old kid to suck my c0ck for $100, then because the child knows the deal and what's in it for it, it becomes OK.
Sounds good to me.

Yes, because that's like 10 million dollars in Thailand so it's cool. Also, you'll go home with a debilitating STD so it's even.

Edit: Removed serious comment because I would rather just go with this.

Interesting.
So if I go to Thailand and get a 12 years old kid to suck my c0ck for $100, then because the child knows the deal and what's in it for it, it becomes OK.
Sounds good to me.


To save some time, here are the next steps of my reflection:
- Morally wrong vs Legally wrong: the fact that it is not legally wrong doesn't make it necessarily less morally wrong. So the fact that our girl in the article is an adult is legally OK, but does not make it necessarily morally OK.
- Ask yourself: then why is it morally wrong for someone to ask a child to perform a sexual act on them? What is the essence of the problem? It is because children (and for example mentally disabled adults) are not able to fully grasp the consequences of their actions, they don't have all the elements, the keyword is "vulnerable".
- Is the choice the girl is making in the article her own? Or is she part of a vulnerable population? At what level of vulnerability (or lack thereof) do we decide (arbitrarily) that the person is now a fully responsible adult and that all of their decisions are truly their own?

This is why I can't quite agree with this. I can't help thinking that, had she had a school without fees and an education she wouldn't have done that. Ignorance & poverty. Would this happen in a world with only rich educated people? I doubt it.
So in my view the "sugar daddies" are exploiting a vulnerable fringe of the population, this is exploitation and, before that, a failure of our system that couldn't prevent this from happening.

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not because about 80% of that is ridiculous.

Thanks Kit for being so enlightening... and assertive.
Think about it, though: if this issue is still debated everywhere in the world, don't you think the issue is a bit more complex than your "series of truths"? Perhaps it is you who are ridiculous in thinking that you have all the answers.
With these kinds of issues unfortunately, it is a lot about "where you draw the line". If there was only one good answer, it would be applied everywhere already by politicians (which means by the way that your answer is an acceptable one too).

Interesting.
So if I go to Thailand and get a 12 years old kid to suck my c0ck for $100, then because the child knows the deal and what's in it for it, it becomes OK.
Sounds good to me.

No. That's why I specified consenting adults. The girl in the article is 25 years old. A far cry from a 12 year old child.

I find 12 years old kids pretty mature these days. More so in Thailand since they have to go through a lot of hardship. To me he should be considered a consenting adult, so this is acceptable. Don't impose your arbitrary morals on me.
Is a 16 y.o. in America a far cry from a 12 y.o. in Thailand?

To save some time, here are the next steps of my reflection:
- Morally wrong vs Legally wrong: the fact that it is not legally wrong doesn't make it necessarily less morally wrong. So the fact that our girl in the article is an adult is legally OK, but does not make it necessarily morally OK.

I question your assertion that sex is morally wrong. I don't believe that people have the right to determine others morals.

You're barking at the wrong tree. People have never (and will never) have the right to determine others morals.
The only thing "morals" can do is: try to influence other people's morals and try to influence society when enough people think something is morally wrong and making it illegal by voting a law (e.g. homosexuality, zoophilia, pedophilia which haven't been or are illegal/not illegal depending on place and time).
You're confusing "morally wrong" and "legally wrong".

I don't consider it morally wrong to have a sexual relationship with someone in exchange for sex. Prostitution is illegal, and I believe that it shouldn't be. Why is sex any more wrong than bartending?

Because one makes you have "intimate"/"sexual" relationships with other people, and that while I could serve anyone in a bar, I wouldn't have sex with anyone in that same bar.
I am glad to read that you hold the belief that your vagina belongs to the public space and that it could be used by anyone who pays you for an access to it, but I personally don't want to accept sex with strangers for money and I know a few other people who think the same (on a side note, I don't think "sex" is morally wrong but I imagine you meant "sex labour"). I suppose then, the balance of minds/morals is currently in my favour (thus the laws against prostitution - not that I am actually against prostitution but let's not even go there).

- Ask yourself: then why is it morally wrong for someone to ask a child to perform a sexual act on them? What is the essence of the problem? It is because children (and for example mentally disabled adults) are not able to fully grasp the consequences of their actions, they don't have all the elements, the keyword is "vulnerable".

Why are children not allowed to have jobs? Why are children not allowed to drink? Smoke? Drive cars? Because they're CHILDREN, those things can be dangerous and it's easy to take advantage or manipulate. Children need to be protected and raised at an age appropriate level.

So it seems we agree, partly. When you say "easy to take advantage and manipulate", we agree. This is what I meant by "they don't have all the elements" and "they are vulnerable".
However, it's not just about waiting for children to be "old enough". Ageing in a non intellectually stimulating environment won't do a lot for our children unfortunately. So it's about educating the people/children so that they can make informed decisions, so that it becomes hard to take advantage of them and manipulate them. A brainwashed/unintelligent/uneducated/uninformed adult is as good as a child in terms of making the right decisions (and probably not very useful to society... although...).

- Is the choice the girl is making in the article her own? Or is she part of a vulnerable population? At what level of vulnerability (or lack thereof) do we decide (arbitrarily) that the person is now a fully responsible adult and that all of their decisions are truly their own?

Depending on where you are, 16-21 years old. The girl in the article is 25 and broke.

Yes 16-21 y.o. Exactly, it is completely arbitrary. Because we have to draw the line somewhere (from a legal standpoint at least).

She's not being vulnerable. Sure she can't keep a job down, but why should she when she can get $3000 per month by doing something she's good at? No one is getting hurt, it's mutually beneficial. If she doesn't want to do it anymore, then she can stop at any point with no legal repercussions.

This is probably the only debatable point of the whole story. Do you think she is or isn't in a situation where she is vulnerable? I think she is. You think she isn't.
One of the girls said this though: Without the extra income, Cervantes said she'd be back at the homeless shelter she lived in for three months in 2009.. That, to me, doesn't look like someone who necessarily has a lot of choices (or maybe even the intelligence to make the right choices).

She can say all day about how it's not ideal and she wishes she wouldn't have to do it, but it smacks of a fat person saying for years that they want to lose weight and never doing anything about it. When you want something you do it. If she didn't want to do this, she would do what millions of college kids have done before her - get a job, keep a job and budget better.

That's also what all criminals should do. Unfortunately some people don't have all the elements to judge a situation, are sometimes out of options and cannot necessarily make the best decisions.

This is why I can't quite agree with this. I can't help thinking that, had she had a school without fees and an education she wouldn't have done that. Ignorance & poverty. Would this happen in a world with only rich educated people? I doubt it.
So in my view the "sugar daddies" are exploiting a vulnerable fringe of the population, this is exploitation and, before that, a failure of our system that couldn't prevent this from happening.

If education was free there would still be poor and uneducated people for a multitude of reasons. There can NEVER EVER be a utopian society where everyone is rich and smart because in the end someone is going to be richer and smarter and someone else is going to be the least rich and smart therefore being "poor and dumb" for it's society. There will be people who don't go to school. There will be people that are lazy. People that get caught up in drugs.

I agree, extremes are basically unattainable. But you can decide what direction you want the society to take, i.e. chose an ideal and get as close from a model as possible, and then you patch it here and there to fill the gaps. This is what we do all the time. Our current system is far from perfect in what it is trying to achieve/has achieved as well (so is as flawed potentially as any other model of society).

Also, I agree with you that there will be always a proportion of "poor and uneducated people" (for example lazy), and so you are saying "I don't want to help anyone at all because some people will take advantage of that situation". And so you ask "decent people" who might have had a chance in another system to pay the same price as those "bad people".
I'm saying that the other possibility is to accept that there will be a proportion of "bad people" who will take advantage of the situation regardless, and so accept this is a collateral damage, but that by helping as many people as we can we also maximise the chances of success for the "decent people". I suppose it depends on your outlook on life.

Last, my "utopian society" is not one where there is an "equality of results" as in everyone is "rich and smart". My utopian society is one where everyone has "equality of chances" of becoming rich and smart, as in everyone regardless of where they are born get the same chances to achieve success. Which is currently not the case at all - but I think this is wayyyyy outside of the scope of the issue at hand.

While yeah, as a student I totally agree that it would be f*cking sweet to not have to pay tuition and get my books for free, the fact remains that there's no such things as a free ride.

This isn't true everywhere in the world. There are places where education is paid by taxes.

Last of the lasts... The whole article wasn't even about prostitution at all (well, at least not "openly") so we probably got sidetracked a lot. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The article speaks of college-aged women. Bringing a 12 year-old girl "sucking c0ck" into this discussion was the worst kind of trolling. Just ridiculous. Kit's vagina belonging to the "public space" was a close second.

Bravo.

--P