Right Thing Smart Thing Sugar Daddy Edition

Guy to woman at bar: Will you have sex with me for $1,000,000?

Woman: Well, [pauses] yeah, sure.

Guy: Will you have sex with me for $100?

Woman: [offended] What kind of girl do you think I am?

Guy: We’ve already established that, we’re just haggling over price now.

Very old joke unknown author

Two days ago Stacy McCain took down a post on the murder of Mackenzie Lueck due to objections by some of his kids to its tone.. In said post (which he stands behind despite taking it down) he objected to Ms. Lueck’s friend’s instance that we must to critique the choices that led to her murder and closes thus:

If grown-ups don’t warn girls against this stuff, peer pressure will continue leading many of them down the same road that led Mackenzie Lueck to her grave. Her anonymous friend can try to rationalize this “sugar baby” racket as something other than what it really is, and argue that “society” is wrong to condemn such behavior, but none of that can change the bottom line: “When they’re dead, they’re just hookers.”

The final line being from an episode of the Adult animated series Archer which by an odd coincidence I had just watched the day before.

Now while I see how that might offend some the point is very correct so let me put this into a context that might be readily understood and be less offensive to those of delicate sensibilities.

It is my understanding that young women have turned to “Sugar daddies” to pay for expensive colleges much like Miriam Weeks choose to become porn star Belle Knox porn star to help pay the tuition at Duke. That being the case let me ask this hypothetical question:

If a college operated a program where rich boosters could buy the, shall we say “companionship” of these young ladies (either for themselves or for student athletes as a perk for recruitment) how would feminists react?

Would they suggest that this is an excellent idea as these would be known men who would be less likely to present a physical danger and would not involve traveling and meeting people at 3 am somewhere? Or would they be shocked and angry at a college facilitating rich boosters using their wealth to obtain sex from young woman?

I submit and suggest that there is no moral difference between the pair. They’re both prostitution under a different name and the spiritual and psychological consequences are the same and I would highly advise any young woman considering such a path to reconsider. Once you start renting yourself out as a man’s sexual property you’ll find men will start treating you as property to be bought and sold. Much better to go to a less expensive school and own yourself completely instead of being the rental property of others.

After all is that really the “equality” you want for yourself?

Leave a Reply