<p>I do not buy that one’s honesty and integrity in one area somehow automatically bleeds over into other areas of their lives. I bet everyone would give a pass if they like something else about the SD or the SD was doing something they think more important. </p>
<p>If it were true that integrity and honest are systemic, politicians would have no wives and families, but the vast majority it do and their wives and kids love them. And there is a famous one from the 1990s that continues to prove that to this day. His wife, kid and a large cohort women in general love him to death, regardless of how he behaved with women. </p>
<p>Even with the SDs, many of the wives who know still choose to be with the husbands, not unlike another famous figure today. So, the integrity and honesty argument goes but so far even for the wives. </p>
<p>Because it’s only the mother’s job to raise daughters? Daughters who are not also raised by present, involved, loving fathers are probably more likely to crave and seek that older male attention from other sources. Maybe fathers are the ones who should do a better job raising their daughters.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is a qualitative difference between these women and “run-of-the-mill prostitutes.” Maybe there is a quantitative difference. The fact that some people are willing to be exploited does not, in my mind, excuse the behavior of the exploiter.</p>
<p>Good point. That was an incorrect omission. </p>
<p>However, regardless of what you said, your daughters instinctively model what your wife does and believes as a female, even if they know it or not. If what you counseled were opposite your wife’s model, your daughters would have to make a choice, and anyone’s guess what the outcome would be there.</p>
<p>There are plenty of mothers out there who tell their daughters, “It is as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it is with a poor one.” All of thus stuff is on a continuum. The women who are actually advertising for a Sugar Daddy are in the minority, and are on the far end of the prostitution continuum. But there are plenty of young (or middle-aged or old) women who are specifically seeking a rich boyfriend or husband. Hard to generalize as to how their parents raised them. </p>
<p>Many of the arguments in favor of such behavior seems to have been drawn from the Seeking Arrangement website. </p>
<p>In my eyes, it is prostitution. Moreover, the wealthy, older men are not “better” than the young women’s age mates. They are creepy. The women who behave like mercenary prostitutes become mercenary prostitutes. You are what you do, even if you can quote copy from a website. </p>
<p>From searching the web, the articles and blog posts from female writers who claim to have tried it out seem to agree that most of the male clients want sex. The old gentlemen who just want a friendly pretty girl to have lunch with are not the ones who show up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? I would assume an older man who frequents prostitutes would be likely to have picked up some interesting diseases along the way. Likewise, anyone who gets intimate with him. With Them. Whatever. And there’s nothing to prevent real predators from using the website, as long as they pay the membership fee, is there?</p>
<p>"I can think of no better way to drive yourself insane than to try to track down every last cent a philandering spouse spent on girlfriends by scrutinizing text messages, emails and the like. Not worth it in my book! Especially if you have kids and want to maintain a relatively decent relationship with the spouse. "</p>
<p>My friend’s initial estimate of what’s been spent is in the high five figure range. She’s got a kid who is a candidate for a top school. I think there’s more than enough change for her to set her forensic accountant and lawyers loose on this one. This isn’t “well, he took her out to the Cheesecake Factory a couple of times so I’m owed $100 more” material. </p>
<p>Nothing is drawn from these sites. These site came after the fact to service an industry that already existed. The sites just make it easier for people to get together. Same as porn was made easier to access via the Internet, but porn existed prior. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough. </p>
<p>However, what you view as being exploited is what some women view as getting what they want and they freely and openly choose that activity over something else. They have different values. It is also surprising how many SBs see themselves as exploiting the rich SDs. So, it does depend somewhat on which side of the table you are sitting. </p>
<p>These men are not in love with the SBs. It is first and foremost a business relationship, just with certain mutual, in common requirements. Discussing these arrangements is no different than discussing a contract. </p>
<p>They do treat the SBs well, and the SBs see them as gentleman based on those acts. But even the SBs know it is foremost a contract, not some some love affair.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It varies all over the map. Some SBs just want to be able to purchase clothes and other things and cost no more than $500 for an arrangement. And the high-end ones eat up $15 -20K per month for the exact same thing, except that dinners and society events are included as well. The college ones are in between in terms of paying her college fees, which varies, but are less than the high-end SBs…</p>
<p>Btw, in my rush to say that I had done my part to my daughters well, I forgot to mention that my sons were also raised to be equal partners in balanced relationships. I don’t like the term “gentlemen,” but they respect themselves enough to only be in relationships with people that they, in turn, respect. </p>
<p>“And there is a famous one from the 1990s that continues to prove that to this day. His wife, kid and a large cohort women in general love him to death, regardless of how he behaved with women.”</p>
<p>We know where you’re heading, and we don’t want to get political lest this get shut down, but it does beg the question - does it feel more “excusable” if no money changed hands? Would it have been “better” if BC had paid for SD/SB arrangements? </p>
<p>No names were given, and I did not condemn anyone’s behavior or call them a bad name.</p>
<p>It is true that people use different standards to judge people they agree with, and saying that politicians are treated that way is not a political discussion. It is pointing out a reality. No different than saying doctors are treated different when it comes to speeding to the hospital to do an emergency operation; they are given a pass and no ticket. </p>
<p>To not make this point with the obvious examples from our society would be a disservice to this conversation because moral outrage is often a targeted barb, as this proves. </p>
<p>To answer your question, he did pay, with access, which is the money of politics. Having lived there, money is secondary. The point is to get inside. Even the SBs in that town function that way. They want access to be around power, not necessarily the hard money. Access is the currency of DC.</p>
<p>I think " love him to death " is overstating it.
I also have the impression ( which could be wrong as I’ve never met him), that he likes women.
The Sugardaddy types Ive met, are pretty mysogynistic, IMO.
Although there always have been people who are blinded by power. That’s why it’s unethical to begin a romantic relationship with someone who is dependent upon your goodwill, like an employee or a student.</p>
<p>This shows what a miserable failure the whole modern feminist movement is.</p>
<p>Equal pay, maternity leave, pay for homemaking, being treated like men-don’t hold a door, don’t pull out a seat, don’t stare at my breasts and don’t look at my hairy legs types of women are reduced to finding sugar daddy’s to pay their way thru college. </p>
<p>The liberal feminist movement is collapsing in on itself. Women seeking to have it all have to twirl on poles, give lap dances, do stripteases and have sex with old freaky men willing to pay to get on the lowest rung of the corporate ladder. Wait until they find out what they’ll be asked to do to move up the ladder.</p>