‘Mutually Beneficial’?

Posted on | November 2, 2011 | 17 Comments

While updating a post about the sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain, I noticed we had a new BlogAds client and clicked the ad to see what services were being advertised:

“Being a Sugar Daddy Has Its Rewards” — no doubt about it — and “College Girls are Creative When it Comes to Arrangements,” as I’m sure everyone will agree.

There is a 24-hour delay between the time an ad is purchased and when it begins running. An e-mail notice is sent, offering me the opportunity to approve or disapprove, but I usually either (a) don’t see the e-mail because of inbox overload, or (b) just ignore it because I don’t have time to fuss with administrative details. So I missed this one until I saw it running on the page, and wondered why the advertiser thought my readership might be a target-rich environment for such a service.

Perhaps some readers will be offended by this ad. Certainly I would not wish to be accused of endorsing such activities. On the other hand, my Bible-based belief system about such matters do not include much leeway in terms of moral relativity. There are not many shades of gray in the dark stains of human depravity.

Sin is sin, and it is difficult for me to declare that the transactions between a young woman and her Sugar Daddy are more sinful than the acts of fornication and sodomy now routinely committed in the context of non-marital “meaningful relationships” between “consenting adults.” Are we to attach an especial stigma to the woman who obtains “mutual benefit” from such acts? Is this a form of prostitution? And is prostitution more worthy of moral condemnation than uncompensated promiscuity? How does a Sugar Daddy differ from a common “john” picking up streetwalkers or hiring call-girls?

Perhaps the advertiser did not intend to provoke such a discussion and would consider my commentary a disparagement of their services. If the proprietors of MutuallyBeneficial.net wish to terminate their ad buy and request a refund from BlogAds, I will have no complaint. On the other hand, if they wish to continue advertising here, I’m not sure that readers should be offended.

As I have often explained, this is the Internet, where no one is ever more than two clicks away from as much decadence and depravity as their wicked hearts may desire. If this ad for “mutually beneficial arrangements” is such an overpowering temptation as to lead you astray, I rather doubt you were on the straight and narrow way to begin with.

And any reader rich enough to be a Sugar Daddy to some young gold digger is rich enough to hit the tip jar for $20, $50 or $100 to compensate me for my labor in composing this brief sermon, in accordance with your estimate of its value.

Fee-for-service is an honest dollar, and if you needed me to persuade you that sin is sin, then I suppose you’ll agree that this has been a “mutually beneficial arrangement.”

Category: Blogging, Sex

Comments

17 Responses to “‘Mutually Beneficial’?”

FrankLaughter
November 2nd, 2011 @ 4:48 pm

Stace! Are you pimping?
Adjoran
November 2nd, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

I object to ads like that. They don’t have a price list. The Tip Jar is quite worthy, but it is unclear just how happy it will end.

When Discus (I presume) hangs up on loading comments (“loading p.widgetserver.something”), I found if I stop the page and then immediately refresh, it works normally.

On one of Smitty’s topics I passed along the news that Michelle Bachmann has brought our old friend Wes Donehue on as a “consultant” in South Carolina, so she means to smear her opponents and go down in flames taking as many with her as possible. There is no other reason for reciting the Satanic incantation that would entice that serpent to slither forth from the pluff mud.
Mangrovemama2002
November 2nd, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

This is prostitution, nothing more.

Paying one’s way through college by having sex for money doesn’t make it any less prostitution.

I paid my way through school working a multitude of jobs, most of which included cleaning the bathroom before I left and I took a city bus (and Greyhound for long distance travel) until I got out of professional school and grad school at age 26.

These college girls may have impressive ACT and SAT scores, but their values are a mile wide and an inch deep.
Dianna Deeley
November 2nd, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

As long as the blog-ad pays, it’s not your responsibility to tell your readers what not to do.

But my reaction remains, “Ewwww!”, and (assuming you copy-and-pasted) they have the wrong “it’s” there. They want “its”.

Um. I need to get paid for proofreading!
Dianna Deeley
November 2nd, 2011 @ 5:06 pm

BTW, what’s up with the Philipino Cupid ads? Yikes!
Datechguy
November 2nd, 2011 @ 5:23 pm

Stacy, I have to disagree with you on this one. That ad is a VERY bad idea
jwallin
November 2nd, 2011 @ 5:42 pm

Plus, you’re making assumptions that a sexual favor for cash or goods transaction is going to take place.

Maybe these girls just want someone to treat them nice and the guys want to treat a nice looking girl nice and to get some hugs and kisses?

You sir are the one with depravity on the mind!!!!

/sarc (did I really have to put that in?)
Dianna Deeley
November 2nd, 2011 @ 5:45 pm

Though the ad with the young woman pulling her bra (? bikini top?) away from her breasts does rather give one pause.
jwallin
November 2nd, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

One person’s work is another’s pleasure and vice versa.

Sex has ALWAYS been about trading some type of commodity for another.

NO ONE gets sex for free. There’s ALWAYS a price to pay.

Think about it honestly and you’ll agree.
Anonymous
November 2nd, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

I missed that thanks for the heads up.
Cube
November 2nd, 2011 @ 6:58 pm

Stacy’s exactly right to doubt that anyone who is lead into sin by an ad was ever on the right path.

On the other hand, there is also the teenager’s version of the prayer: “Lead me not into temptation – I can find it on my own.”
Anonymous
November 2nd, 2011 @ 7:31 pm

I’m almost certain Dianna didn’t intend it as a highlight reel… 😎
Adjoran
November 2nd, 2011 @ 9:12 pm

As a victim of Obamanomics, I just can’t afford to be a Sugar Daddy right now. It’s clearly discrimination.

So I am calling on Obama to be “fair” and subsidize those of us who can’t afford young college “friends” on our own.

Now there’s a “stimulus plan” I could really get behind . . .
Ccoffer
November 3rd, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

I prefer that sort of ad to the one for Klan t-shirts that was up here the other day.
Quartermaster
November 3rd, 2011 @ 4:36 pm

I sense a bit of cognitive dissonace between this post and the weekly Rule 5 post. Not that I don’t like cheesecake.

Of course, marital arrangements are mutually beneficial as well. They’re just meant to be permanent.
‘Unwanted Advances’ : The Other McCain
November 8th, 2011 @ 12:16 pm

[…] do”) has become a cottage industry of sorts. There are many Web sites — including one that recently began advertising here – that specialize in arranging hook-ups. But I also consider the modern fitness industry an […]
“Gold-Digger” Sharon Bialek Lived In Same Building As David Axelrod, Once Accused Ex-Boyfriend Of Harassment « Nice Deb
November 8th, 2011 @ 2:53 pm

[…] A New York Times headline characterizes the accusation against Cain as “lewd behavior,” but such behavior goes on all the time — yea, verily, even in New York! — without meriting a headline in the Times. Share this:TwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Posted in Hmmmmmmm, Repubs, Scandal!. Leave a Comment » […]