I Guess That's One Way to Pay for College

Mod note: Best of Eddie, this was originally posted on 2/11/14.

God, I love the free market. This is absolutely hilarious. Call me old fashioned, but I look back with fondness on the days when a guy could walk into just about any strip club and witness the cold war between the perky college girls and the haggard single moms with past due rent playing out on the stage and in the champagne room. The lithe youngsters would glide casually from patron to patron, and their surly older counterparts would give them stink-eye while bending at the waist - more to conceal their C-section scars than to titillate the married guys on Pervert's Row. Alas, technology appears set to lay waste to another of our vaunted institutions.

This might come as a shock to you, but occasionally older guys are willing to cough up a little dough to find themselves in the company of beautiful younger women. So it stands to reason that the free market would provide a solution for these...ummm...introductions. One such provider is very up front about what they're offering, and even has a hilarious video extolling the virtues of amateur prostitution. But is it really prostitution?

“Prostitution is black and white; it’s just an exchange of sex for money,” says Angela Jacob Bermudo, public-relations manager for SeekingArrangement, which encases its matchmaking service in a cloud of euphemisms.
“On SeekingArrangement, people are coming to find their ideal relationship. It’s about the connection. These men are shelling out $3,000 a month for a sugar baby. That’s not something that a man is going to spend for a simple, one-night engagement.”

The sight targets college-age "sugar babies" by giving free membership to those who sign up with .edu email addresses, and they tout the fact that the average sugar baby pulls in three grand a month. There are currently 58,000 sugar babies in New York, so it's obviously catching on.

I just love how brazen these guys are. More power to them. Gone are the days when a woman tried to conceal the fact that she's a gold digger; now it's a badge of honor and vehicle of empowerment:

“SeekingArrangement.com was created to empower women,” Wade said in a 2012 statement for National Women’s Month. “A sugar baby is an empowered woman who is tired of dating losers that contribute nothing to her life. She has made a commitment to only date men who will help her to achieve her goals.”

Achieve her goals indeed.

If it's between this and flipping burgers (or working the pole at the Spearmint Rhino), it's pretty much a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

I just wonder when the site's going to start taking a cut?

EDIT: Thought I'd share the vid, because it's hilarious:

 

I wonder how long before this gets shut down. There was another website out there that did the exact same thing a few years ago and it got shut down after a year or two. I think it was even as simple as like sugarbaby.com or something silly like that that really didn't hide what they were doing.

make it hard to spot the general by working like a soldier
 

The irony is the completion of the circle. This is the kind of shit that their mothers and grandmothers protested against for equal rights and what not. Now their daughters and granddaughters are out there using the previous generations gains to do the same shit and call it an "empowered" world view.

The irony is astounding. If they would just go back to the way it was they would be making money rather than e-hooking for to pay their college debts.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 
heister:

The irony is the completion of the circle. This is the kind of shit that their mothers and grandmothers protested against for equal rights and what not. Now their daughters and granddaughters are out there using the previous generations gains to do the same shit and call it an "empowered" world view.

The irony is astounding. If they would just go back to the way it was they would be making money rather than e-hooking for to pay their college debts.

This.
 
heister:

The irony is the completion of the circle. This is the kind of shit that their mothers and grandmothers protested against for equal rights and what not. Now their daughters and granddaughters are out there using the previous generations gains to do the same shit and call it an "empowered" world view.

The irony is astounding. If they would just go back to the way it was they would be making money rather than e-hooking for to pay their college debts.

e-hooking ;-)
 

@ heister - the primary difference is that it's voluntary participation, as opposed to an era where women simply didn't have any other options. Kind of like how the military is treated so much better than in past eras because it's an all volunteer corps and the people that sign up actually want to be there.

More to the point though, why on earth would I even consider dating a chick in NYC or treating them like an equal? I'm starting to see more clearly the difference between all my associations in the city vs the place where I grew up. Come to NYC to get ahead but no one here is your friend, everyone is just out for themselves.

Get busy living
 

Is it really voluntary? The debt a lot of kids have coming out of school is enormous, when you factor in that more women major is non core and usable degrees than men do you have essentially the same thing that existed in the 50s that women are tied to men for survival. Granted times have improved in a lot of way but not near to the degree that people would have you believe.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

No more or less voluntary than accepting a higher-paying job in a less desirable industry so as to pay off student debt. As with anything else, there are trade offs. People have autonomy over their own bodies, I see no reason why they should not be able to exercise that autonomy for their own purposes. Who are we to say what a woman can or cannot do?

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 

What could possibly be the justification for disallowing the voluntary arrangements between two consenting, free parties?

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 

No doubt the far-right will be quick to cry wolf, lest we allow this pestiferous harlotry pollute our Victorian morality.

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 

It reminds me of the article I read on cnnmoney.com about upstart.com. It is pretty interesting company and story. A young lady received $100,000 to pay off student loans and seed her company. In return the 36 investors that fronted the money get to divvy up 6% of her monthly pretax income for 10 years.

 

I definitely will admit, I checked out the sugar babies, sugar daddies, and sugar mammas. This site is kind of a joke compared to the old one. Looks like a craigslist casual encounters/backpage combination with not so wealthy people.

Frank Sinatra - "Alcohol may be man's worst enemy, but the bible says love your enemy."
 

Serious question....does anyone even care what the far right has to say anymore? I mean, weed is legal, gays can get married, healthcare reform finally started, Preet is 79-0 on financial crimes, and the Ted Cruz faction just backed down from a debt ceiling showdown without a word. Even Paul Rand is talking out of both sides of his mouth on immigration.

The hard left was pretty much crushed in 2005, despite some holdover hippies take center stage at the OWS protests, and now it seems the other rogue faction of rabble rousers is getting thoroughly spanked. I'm not sure if it's a good thing, I'm just wondering if that's it from them for a good long while.

Get busy living
 
UFOinsider:

Serious question....does anyone even care what the far right has to say anymore? I mean, weed is legal, gays can get married, healthcare reform finally started, Preet is 79-0 on financial crimes, and the Ted Cruz faction just backed down from a debt ceiling showdown without a word. Even Paul Rand is talking out of both sides of his mouth on immigration.

The hard left was pretty much crushed in 2005, despite some holdover hippies take center stage at the OWS protests, and now it seems the other rogue faction of rabble rousers is getting thoroughly spanked. I'm not sure if it's a good thing, I'm just wondering if that's it from them for a good long while.

I don't keep tabs on the polls, but I'd be willing to bet that a comfortable majority of the left still oppose transacting money for companionship or sex, despite the speciousness of such moralizing.

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 

Okay, I was tongue-in-cheek about this site earlier, but give me a break, Northsider. It doesn't make anyone "far right" because they're not emotionally stunted libertybots with the illusion (one of your favorite words) that these sorts of things are always voluntary. Or that there's a moral aspect to this that you might understand, von Mises forbid, if you ever had a daughter. I love that people are either liberal, libertarian or "far right" to you guys. I mean fuck, stick to finance.

I personally don't give a crap about the site, I laughed at it, but that you can't even imagine why someone would be startled by this sort of thing? Victorian? Really? GMAFB.

Please don't wirte a 600 word response with goddamn footnotes, I have to go pretend to work, but really, when some of you guys complain about "Puritan" or "Victorian" morals, I think of the Princess Bride quote - I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

Let me try to hack through the jungle of character assassination below. Separately, however, I might recommend Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind. Haidt experimentally observes that reason is a blunt tool for exploring moral intuitions. Liberals (myself included) often caw at conservative moralizing for a lack of logical structure; in line with Haidt, you seem to suggest below that I lack the moral instinct that is sharpened with experience. That may be so, but it's an unfulfilling explanation to me; I am unable to detect any logical cogency and I am frightened by the potential extensions of such ineffable moral reactions.

Scott Irish:
Okay, I was tongue-in-cheek about this site earlier, but give me a break, Northsider. It doesn't make anyone "far right" because they're not emotionally stunted libertybots with the illusion (one of your favorite words) that these sorts of things are always voluntary.

Of course I wouldn't say that relations between two parties are "always voluntary". Rape, in this case, offers a simple rejoinder. But that is obviously the exception, not the rule, and it seems only straightforward that emancipating the escort from the black market underworld would increase the reporting of rape and boost safety for all parties involved.

Or that there's a moral aspect to this that you might understand, von Mises forbid, if you ever had a daughter.

Naturally. This is a question of moralily. Whether or not I have a daughter should, therefore, not affect your ability to formulate that moral system or my ability to appreciate it. For the sake of your comfort, I will add that I most certainly won't be having children. Nevertheless, if I had children - son or daughter - who voluntarily entered into an transactional agreement for companionship or intimate favors, I see no reason to object. One of my closest, most intelligent and ambitious friends - a male, in fact! - has partaken in such arrangements, and has not suffered any terrible moral crises. On the contrary, he speaks fondly of his experience and of the people with whom he interacted. I only wish that it weren't social suicide for him to be honest - that he weren't proscribed by arbitrary moral taboos.

I wonder: would you employ the same reasoning to homosexuality? If not, I would protest that your moral intuitions here would have fit quite nicely into the discarded Victorian (I'm sorry, my explanation for this diction is below) sexual taboo against consenting same-gender adults. Would I understand that "moral aspect" better if I had a son?

when some of you guys complain about "Puritan" or "Victorian" morals, I think of the Princess Bride quote - I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Please do explain how "we" understand Victorian morals and how your view differs (no sarcasm intended). I adopt Michel Foucault's language from his History of Sexuality, which is fairly widely-accepted in what academic writing I've read on the matter. Would you prefer different semantics? You've already eschewed "conservative", I'm running out of adjectives.

EDIT: A lot of MS getting tossed around here, unsurprisingly. But I'm undeterred; this is a touchier subject than free markets, but it is one about which I'm equally passionate. It's an important issue.

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 

Whether prostitution should be legal or not is probably best discussed on it's own thread, but knowing WSO we're about to go there LOL. I can say this much: I'm not against it being legal but it's not something I partake of or would want to see a family member or friend do. What is the designation for a someone whose personal lifestyle is very orthodox but is politically in favor of having a larger spectrum of lifestyles being legalized?

Get busy living
 

Providing transparency in an opaque market. Good for them.

I will never understand dudes who pay for attention. But hey, their money. Roll out to the J Tree and start creeping around 2am and you can save yourself a lot of hassle.

 

Wait, did NorthSider just call himself a "liberal"? I've followed his comments for months (a year maybe?) and thought that he was pretty much an atheist conservative. Guess I missed the boat on that one.

I think the fact that prostitution is illegal from Islamic theocracies to libertine, secular democracies and in most places on Earth, I'd say that the debate transcends the label of "far right" or any direction on the political sphere. I don't think the Democrat Party has legalization of prostitution on its platform that it updated in 2012.

 
DCDepository:

Wait, did NorthSider just call himself a "liberal"? I've followed his comments for months (a year maybe?) and thought that he was pretty much an atheist conservative. Guess I missed the boat on that one.

Liberal in the classical sense of a "liberated society", both economically and socially. Today one would probably term my beliefs libertarian. In any case, with respect to the socio-ethical conversation herein, "liberal" is apt: I believe that government should be limited and people ought to be free to enter into any agreement they choose, so long as it does not infringe on the property rights of another.

I think the fact that prostitution is illegal from Islamic theocracies to libertine, secular democracies and in most places on Earth, I'd say that the debate transcends the label of "far right" or any direction on the political sphere. I don't think the Democrat Party has legalization of prostitution on its platform that it updated in 2012.

One could have made the same statement about slavery / racism, women's rights, gay rights, children's rights, corporal punishment, etc. at various points in history. Indeed, consensus gentium isn't a reliable standard of ethical justification.

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 

I'm a federalist on 95% of issues. WIth regard to drug legalization, gambling, and prostitution if another state or county wants those things then I guess I say more power to them. But I don't want methadone clinics, whore houses, and gambling casinos in my back yard. I would guess that the vast, vast majority of the people in my community feel the same way. The types of people that are attracted to drug clinics, casinos, and whore houses are not exactly the people most want in their communities. That's an opinion--my community finding prostitutes, drug addicts, and gambling addicts to be "undesirable" is not something that you can argue away with a textbook.

Society doesn't need a scholarly justification for finding things disgusting or unwanted. Some communities ban chain linked fences. Why? Because it's the opinion of the community that they are unattractive. It's the opinion of my community--and most--that casinos bring in undesirables and degrade the community. It's our opinion that whore houses offend our sensibilities and send bad messages to our kids. And it's my community's opinion that drug addicts stumbling around the streets is not what we want our kids to see, nor are those addicts the type of people we want to interact with on a regular basis. My community, my right to vote for my preference for how to live. Don't like it? You can always move. That's what true freedom is in a pluralistic society and to me that's the brilliance of America's founding fathers. Unfortunately, with the centralization of government power in Washington, D.C., debates that should be local have turned national.

 

Aw this shit? Yeah it's a pretty good idea... but not for the reason's you're thinking of. It makes sense as a "legal arbitrage" for a monthly fee prostitution arrangement. Think about it... ofcourse, there are some old assed men who want to throw their money away because they're stupid and depressed... but very few attractive women will benefit off of that. What will happen is "sugar babies" will have to bring their price down, and you'd have some "lower cost" "sugar-babies". An example arrangement could be a grand a month maybe ($250 x 4) and you get to fuck on weekends for X hours. THAT'S where the money's at. The rest is just wishful thinking for young women who think they're very attractive and can justify sugar-daddies, and you know what, some of them obviously justify the price. But as with everything in the world, the majority will not.

I LOVE THE FREE MARKET!!

TL;DR For most, it just makes sense as prostitution, but with a monthly plan as opposed to pay as you go.

I would... but the truth is I can't sell my soul to myself... http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blackknight.asp
 

I just don't get why we have to restrict what two consenting adults do. Seems to me a bunch of prudes don't like the blatant exchange of money for sex. They much rather prefer the subtle exchange.

 

This is like a forward contract, really. Both parties are hedging risk. It eliminates the risk of lack of/hostile/undesirable clients for the sugar babies, and it benefits the clients/sugar daddies by knowing who exactly they're dealing with. Lets face it, in this market, there is a serious lack of product homogeneity. Knowing a sugar baby has certain attributes (such as health related attributes), and has a quality brand due to strong risk management practices (such aslimited exposure to a set number of clients, as well as "quality control" testing) is great! It can definitely contribute to product differentiation.

Another thought: how long till we have an exchange trading these contracts?

I would... but the truth is I can't sell my soul to myself... http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blackknight.asp
 

Legalization doesn't mean it will be all around your community. Two words: zoning laws. People always say if it's legalized it will be everywhere...so not true. State legalization and federal legalization has little effect on your community...your community decides what establishments are there. So yes, vote no in your community, but don't f*ck over the rest of us because you think that legalization causes more harm than good...it doesn't, remember your vote is not a personal statement of moral vs immoral. For example, I don't think cigarettes should be illegal...that doesn't mean I smoke cigs (I don't) or I think they are good (I don't), but I do believe we are responsible for ourselves...not the gov't. Remember, they work for us.

Personally, I like the site, and wouldn't be above using it at a point in my life...though I doubt I will. I think we need to stop focusing so much on punishing those who VOLUNTARILY choose to engage in certain activities that hurt no one beyond those involved and focus on educating and helping people preemptively. No more, "it's too tempting for these girls who come from xyz background"....you just give power to the black market, much more dangerous. "Oh no, these aren't girls who would've gone to the black market, these are girls who got into college"...then they are smart enough to make their own decisions. It is not the governments job to act as our parents...their job is to protect us from other countries and other people in this country...not ourselves. You can focus on teaching girls why this is a bad solution to their problems, not on jailing two people for exchanging green for pink. This has worked wonders for tobacco in our country. And the opposite failed horribly for alcohol, and is failing horribly for drugs...but hey, it keeps the government expenses and payroll high!

 

Legalize it, who cares. The zoning argument is correct. You think high end neighborhoods would let something open near them? The areas around casinos are shit holes because casinos are built in the hood. No one is opening a slot farm on madison ave.

This entire argument is moot anyway as prostitution continues unabated. So it is "illegal" in the sense that pulling the blanket over your head will save you when something scary happens. AKA it is worthless, yet feels good. Open up Craigslist or Backpages and tell me how illegal paying for sex is. Go date a bimbo and tell me how paying for sex doesn't exist.

Lets all be honest with each other. Shit like this is kept illegal so we can bust poor people and minorities whenever we want. If you think for one second drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc are illegal for anyone making $100K or more a year you are crazy. The only horrible whore house areas are in the hood and they suck not because people pay for sex, but because you have poor and uneducated people doing it. If that whore house was in Beverly Hills and people parked their Ferrari's out front while getting laid no one would care and people would be fine with it.

 
TNA:

Legalize it, who cares. The zoning argument is correct. You think high end neighborhoods would let something open near them? The areas around casinos are shit holes because casinos are built in the hood. No one is opening a slot farm on madison ave.

This entire argument is moot anyway as prostitution continues unabated. So it is "illegal" in the sense that pulling the blanket over your head will save you when something scary happens. AKA it is worthless, yet feels good. Open up Craigslist or Backpages and tell me how illegal paying for sex is. Go date a bimbo and tell me how paying for sex doesn't exist.

Lets all be honest with each other. Shit like this is kept illegal so we can bust poor people and minorities whenever we want. If you think for one second drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc are illegal for anyone making $100K or more a year you are crazy. The only horrible whore house areas are in the hood and they suck not because people pay for sex, but because you have poor and uneducated people doing it. If that whore house was in Beverly Hills and people parked their Ferrari's out front while getting laid no one would care and people would be fine with it.

My point was that I support the right of other communities to do whatever they want, but as for my community I would vote to ban it either via law or zoning. I don't think I really disagree with you fundamentally. I don't want a whore house on my street or within cannon shot of my house. If you don't care then you can have it in your community. It doesn't bother me at all.

 
DCDepository:
Isn't that your principle? If someone else's freedom doesn't impact you then their "vice" should be allowable. I can assert that their vices do impact me.

An impact on your psyche does not justify statutory protection. I could argue that your Christianity cause me distress, but that doesn't validate a law banning Christian religious expression.

My point was that I support the right of other communities to do whatever they want, but as for my community I would vote to ban it either via law or zoning. I don't think I really disagree with you fundamentally. I don't want a whore house on my street or within cannon shot of my house. If you don't care then you can have it in your community. It doesn't bother me at all.

If you can reach a voluntary arrangement between the property owners of a community, you're welcome to make any restrictions you'd like on who can purchase land and for what purposes. So I agree with your sentiment here, even if I disagree with the suggested implementation. Mobilizing government to legislate your morality violates the principles of liberty.

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 
<span class=keyword_link><a href=/company/trilantic-north-america>TNA</a></span>:
Lets all be honest with each other. Shit like this is kept illegal so we can bust poor people and minorities whenever we want.

This is literally the dumbest thing you've ever said.

 

@"DCDepository" If you weren't so able to form coherent sentences, I'd swear that you were a child. Not voting is a vote.

One of the greatest ironies in life (and I can say this because I'm well above the median age on this site) is that people reach the end of their lives and suddenly realize they cared about the wrong shit. It's even funnier when their kids dismiss their belief set as stupid and uninformed while they're still a part of the parent's life. I only mention this because you might want to take a step back and ask yourself if you really care about the right things. You wonder aloud how someone would feel if their daughter participated in prostitution. What if yours does, and does so because she rejects your Puritan belief set? Will you be one of these, "I'll disown you!" types of parents who makes it to the end of their life only to realize they threw away the only things they had of value because of their inconsequential "beliefs"?

 
Edmundo Braverman:

@DCDepository If you weren't so able to form coherent sentences, I'd swear that you were a child. Not voting is a vote.

One of the greatest ironies in life (and I can say this because I'm well above the median age on this site) is that people reach the end of their lives and suddenly realize they cared about the wrong shit. It's even funnier when their kids dismiss their belief set as stupid and uninformed while they're still a part of the parent's life. I only mention this because you might want to take a step back and ask yourself if you really care about the right things. You wonder aloud how someone would feel if their daughter participated in prostitution. What if yours does, and does so because she rejects your Puritan belief set? Will you be one of these, "I'll disown you!" types of parents who makes it to the end of their life only to realize they threw away the only things they had of value because of their inconsequential "beliefs"?

Well, your post is a classic example of why I don't respect anything that you write. "Not voting" isn't a vote unless you've made an informed decision NOT to vote. For example, I didn't vote for my Congressman because I worked for him, got to know him and didn't respect him afterwards. I actively abstained from voting. Being too lazy to consider the candidates and to explore your own worldview is not the same thing as conscientious abstention.

The rest of your post is babbling nonsense. All I've said about prostitution is "not in my backyard". That's the extent of the opinion I've expressed.

 

I'll tell you what, god forbid I am cursed with children, my daughters vagina is going to be the last thing I concern myself about.

People just cannot allow other people to live their life. I just don't get it. You should be allowed to do what you want as long as it doesn't impact another persons freedom or property. So I can understand not allowing pink houses in a community, I cannot understand forbidding someone from charging for sex.

Charging for sex =/= "prostitution" in the way people think. I think people hear that word and imagine pimps and women in cheap clothing hanging out on the corner. Obviously this wouldn't be allowed in someones suburb. But it is wrong that an adult human cannot set the price for goods or services that they create or control. This includes what I do with my body.

 
TNA:

I'll tell you what, god forbid I am cursed with children, my daughters vagina is going to be the last thing I concern myself about.

People just cannot allow other people to live their life. I just don't get it. You should be allowed to do what you want as long as it doesn't impact another persons freedom or property. So I can understand not allowing pink houses in a community, I cannot understand forbidding someone from charging for sex.

Charging for sex =/= "prostitution" in the way people think. I think people hear that word and imagine pimps and women in cheap clothing hanging out on the corner. Obviously this wouldn't be allowed in someones suburb. But it is wrong that an adult human cannot set the price for goods or services that they create or control. This includes what I do with my body.

If not being able to pay for sex is the greatest injustice that we face then we've got a pretty good society. I like you, ANT, but people who support the legalization of prostitution are basically doing exactly what liberal Democrats did with Obamacare--they don't consider the unintended consequences. Take marijuana, for example (and I support legalization of marijuana)--never would I have thought that legalization would have caused the black market to actually increase in Colorado, but the taxes levied on marijuana are such that it's more economic to buy marijuana on the black market in Colorado today than to purchase it legally; the assumption was that marijuana prices would decline now that dealers didn't have a "jail time" mark-up. Legalized prostitution, ironically, actually increases sex trafficking and instances of slavery. In my view, decreased sex trafficking and enslavement is worth giving up the "right" to pay for sex.

I'll assert this until I'm blue in the face--these issues aren't black and white. What one might believe in principle may not make sense in practice. What on the surface resembles freedom may actually cause tyranny. Perhaps you envision legalized prostitution as a man calling up a girl and paying for sex in his basement. However, the reality may be organized crime and sex trafficking and greater instances of enforced servitude (slavery).

 

The issue with pot being legalized is the outrageous taxes levied. So you can thank the government yet again. And the black market is now tax avoidance, not gunning people down. Similar to what people do when they buy online and don't pay state taxes.

Listen, you can argue all you want, but you are allowing government to control what you do with your body. And it is a joke since you can fuck someone who buys you clothes and takes you out, but the second that becomes cash instead of goods and services it becomes dirty and illegal.

Furthermore, I fail to see how prostitution isn't essentially legal now. We have bullshit laws on the books that no one obeys and it basically keeps money off the books and people unsafe. But this is better than just allowing people to do as they please as long as they don't violate someone elses rights or property.

This is 100% why I will never live in anything but a city and metropolitan area. I could not stand suburbs.

 
TNA:

The issue with pot being legalized is the outrageous taxes levied. So you can thank the government yet again. And the black market is now tax avoidance, not gunning people down. Similar to what people do when they buy online and don't pay state taxes.

Listen, you can argue all you want, but you are allowing government to control what you do with your body. And it is a joke since you can fuck someone who buys you clothes and takes you out, but the second that becomes cash instead of goods and services it becomes dirty and illegal.

Furthermore, I fail to see how prostitution isn't essentially legal now. We have bullshit laws on the books that no one obeys and it basically keeps money off the books and people unsafe. But this is better than just allowing people to do as they please as long as they don't violate someone elses rights or property.

This is 100% why I will never live in anything but a city and metropolitan area. I could not stand suburbs.

Again, your vision of legalized prostitution is a vision through rose colored glasses. You can look up prostitution in the Netherlands on google. Article after article about how it's increased organized crime, crime in general, sex trafficking, child slavery, etc. I personally don't believe that the right to pay for sex and for it to be condoned by government is worth the consequences. Maybe that makes me a tyrant. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. But again, this is why I support federalism--you can have your city and I can have my suburb.

 

Excuse me? There is crime with it being illegal and I am sure there will be some people who don't want to register, who want to pimp women, who want to have underage girls, etc. This happens right now. Except now we arrest normal people and these true trouble makers. You legalize the act and you can punish the true problem.

This is just like state governments forcing women to have ultrasounds before they have an abortion. Fucking bullshit.

I am sorry, but if you think it is ok for the government to tell you what to do with your body in some of the most basic ways you automatically become a liberal, nanny state supporter. No questions.

And yes, people can live where they want, but zip code doesn't change enforcement. Shit, you could make the same argument for slavery. The south is fine telling other humans what to do with their body and the north can be ok with freedom.

 
TNA:

Excuse me? There is crime with it being illegal and I am sure there will be some people who don't want to register, who want to pimp women, who want to have underage girls, etc. This happens right now. Except now we arrest normal people and these true trouble makers. You legalize the act and you can punish the true problem.

This is just like state governments forcing women to have ultrasounds before they have an abortion. Fucking bullshit.

I am sorry, but if you think it is ok for the government to tell you what to do with your body in some of the most basic ways you automatically become a liberal, nanny state supporter. No questions.

And yes, people can live where they want, but zip code doesn't change enforcement. Shit, you could make the same argument for slavery. The south is fine telling other humans what to do with their body and the north can be ok with freedom.

I'll reiterate the point--you assume that legalizing the industry will bring the scum into the light. Again, read about prostitution in the Netherlands--it is now one of the top places for human trafficking and organized crime has completely taken over the industry. In an "ideal" scenario prostitution would be limited to a guy calling up an escort (who is a consenting adult) from a local service and the 2 people exchange goods and services. That's not really how it works in practice. Now imagine a nation of 315 million people trying to regulate the sex trade across the continent. The Dutch, in their tiny country, have found it nearly impossible to run a clean system. How do you think our less effective governments would operate the regulation of the sex trade in the US? It would be a disaster.

 

Keep in mind that you can still have police enforcement while legalizing something. Just because prostitution is legal doesn't mean you turn your back to organized crime, abuse, child sex, drugs, etc.

 

Opened this thread expecting an absolute shit-show, I have not been disappointed and am in fact a bit surprised at how much I underestimated it.

Always love how people try to paint life in one of two colors through with their personally ideal political, philosophical, and moral models. Misplaced concreteness run amok.

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for freedom of thought which they seldom use.
 

cough I may or may not have once been a user of SeekingArrangement as an undercover journalist. Ask me anything.

Honestly surprised it took WSO so long to write about this. It's been around for quite a while.

Currently: future neurologist, current psychotherapist Previously: investor relations (top consulting firm), M&A consulting (Big 4), M&A banking (MM)
 
DickFuld:
chicandtoughness:

*cough* I may or may not have once been a user of SeekingArrangement as an undercover journalist. Ask me anything.

Honestly surprised it took WSO so long to write about this. It's been around for quite a while.

I'll bite. So, how was it?

A good way to earn money. Lots of folks like you on there - rich, old, boring marriages, want a little fun. Fun is not necessarily restricted to sexual fun. The transaction is not so much sex money but more like attention money. These guys are old, or super busy entrepreneurs/businessmen. So they pay for a slice of your time to be charming, lighthearted, and not an old nag. Honestly, if I wasn't dating someone, I'd do it again. SBabies have the option to filter out, so if you don't wanna be paid for sex, don't respond to the SDs that ask for it.

EDIT: didn't mean to call you old. "Golden years", perhaps, would be more appropriate?

Currently: future neurologist, current psychotherapist Previously: investor relations (top consulting firm), M&A consulting (Big 4), M&A banking (MM)
 

For all the "tl;dr" folks out there...

Virtually everyone other than DCDepository: "A cogent, rational framework that shuns prostitution and yet maintains our current acceptance of black/women/gay rights, alcohol, etc. is needed to fully outlaw prostitution. And since it doesn't exist, prostitution should be legal (as, the argument against prostitution could have once been drawn up against a number of past issues that are now widely approved of). If two consenting adults want to engage in prostitution on their property, that's fine with me."

DCDepository: "The world revolves around me, and my philosophy should form the only basis on which the law stands. Oh, and prostitution is a lot worse than anything else you can do to your own body. I can't logically explain why, but it just is."

You're welcome.

 

Thread begins about a website that allows girls to find sugar daddies... ends with a discussion of Victorian morals, free market capitalism, pestiferous harlotry, and the Louisiana Purchase. #WSO

 

at least now when this happens in 2014, we get some degree of respect and an interesting debate back and forth. If this was 2012, we probably would have had to shut the thread down by comment #50 because of all the name calling and trolls making obnoxious comments...

I think we've evolved to support a slightly more educational / respectful tone which is great to see. I always learn a lot by listening to both sides of an argument. So even though it's against the WSO Guidelines to discuss politics and religion, if we can all respectfully agree to disagree on certain issues and still explore them, at least those threads won't get locked / removed as quickly :-)

 

1) All consenting adults...better to have a website then a pimp.
2) Anybody on here who pays $400 for a bottle of vodka in a club so that some promoter can send a few girls over to your table to pretend they like you is doing the exact same thing except they have less chance of actually getting laid.

Everyone should relax...prostitution in all its forms has been around since the dawn of man and it isnt going anywhere so everyone on here moralizing is wasting their breath. Just dont involve yourself if you think its wrong.

 
DCDepository:
Edmundo Braverman:

@DCDepository has to be trolling now. No one suffers from this much cognitive dissonance.

An example please of the cognitive dissonance? You're going to throw it out there, so let's please see your example.

I'll bite by pointing out the obvious and making the implicit explicit...

So let's start off with one definition of cognitive dissonance. From Wikipedia: "the stress and discomfort that arises within an individual who holds a belief and performs a contradictory action or reaction"

Let's break it up into its two parts:

1) Belief: "In general, respect is an important quality worth attaining". This is made clear throughout your comments, especially through your mentioning of its absence being the consequence of not participating in the political system and you holding that participation in high regard.

2) Contradictory Action: "Behaving in a manner that does not command respect from others." Examples include mudslinging ("6th grader","dumbass","idiot", "lazy", etc) and exaggerated or inflammatory language ("patently absurd", "shut the fuck up", etc).

I guess one could potentially justify this apparent contradiction by reaching into the psychology goodie bag and pointing to Freud's idea for every person having a desire for self-destruction, but that might be a bit of a stretch...

 

My goodness, @DCDepository , I'm startled by your rapaciousness. What's the purpose of mindless character assassinations of everyone with whom you disagree? By alienating all of your opponents, you neutralize the effect any validity in your arguments might have on them.

With respect to your recent remonstrations:

1) As a matter of political philosophy, the citizenship, voting record and affiliations of a person are irrelevant. No one here is bemoaning the U.S. government in particular, but rather supporting an argument of policy: namely, that an optimal government ought not interfere on the rights of individuals to enter into voluntary arrangements with others, including cash-for-sex or cash-for-companionship transactions. No one has solicited your "respect", they are submitting claims re: prudent policy.

2) The reason why others are charging you with duplicity re: libertarianism is because you claim to support personal liberty, yet have indicated that you seek to mobilize your local government to restrict individual liberty. While arranging social policy on the level of localities rather than national governments is doubtlessly preferable to our current regime, the political philosophy you putatively advocate (libertarianism) applies equally to all governments, regardless of their auspice. Government is not a vehicle for moralizing or enforcing one's values, it is, instead, a means by which we can protect the liberties of individuals to act according to their own set of beliefs and preferences. You may not support that statement, but if you do not, it's quite misleading to label yourself a libertarian.

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 
NorthSider:

My goodness, @DCDepository , I'm startled by your rapaciousness. What's the purpose of mindless character assassinations of everyone with whom you disagree? By alienating all of your opponents, you neutralize the effect any validity in your arguments might have on them.

With respect to your recent remonstrations:

1) As a matter of political philosophy, the citizenship, voting record and affiliations of a person are irrelevant. No one here is bemoaning the U.S. government in particular, but rather supporting an argument of policy: namely, that an optimal government ought not interfere on the rights of individuals to enter into voluntary arrangements with others, including cash-for-sex or cash-for-companionship transactions. No one has solicited your "respect", they are submitting claims re: prudent policy.

2) The reason why others are charging you with duplicity re: libertarianism is because you claim to support personal liberty, yet have indicated that you seek to mobilize your local government to restrict individual liberty. While arranging social policy on the level of localities rather than national governments is doubtlessly preferable to our current regime, the political philosophy you putatively advocate (libertarianism) applies equally to all governments, regardless of their auspice. Government is not a vehicle for moralizing or enforcing one's values, it is, instead, a means by which we can protect the liberties of individuals to act according to their own set of beliefs and preferences. You may not support that statement, but if you do not, it's quite misleading to label yourself a libertarian.

I never said I advocated libertarianism. I said that "in principle" I'm a libertarian in the sense of live and let live. But I also asserted that legalized prostitution can have negative consequences on a neighborhood, hence it is rational for a neighborhood or a community to oppose legalized prostitution in their backyard since, as you assert, your freedom ends at the edge of my nose. That's not duplicity. Libertarian public policy is not uniform, nor is conservative or liberal public policy. To put public policy into an ideological box is not particularly realistic. Even among libertarians there are left-wing and right-wing libertarians.

WIkipedia's definition of "libertarianism" is informative:

"Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free")1 is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.23 This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,45 political freedom, and voluntary association. It is an antonym of authoritarianism.[6] Although libertarians share a skepticism of governmental authority, they diverge on the extent and character of their opposition. Certain schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views on how far the powers of government should be limited and others contend the state should not exist at all."

As far as character assassinations, as is always the case, when people can't defeat my arguments they attack me personally. Half of the thread devoted to non-participation in the political process was my response to someone accusing me personally of being a hypocrite. And as is always the case on WSO, I get accused of ad hominem when I'm responding...to ad hominem!

 
DCDepository:

I never said I advocated libertarianism. I said that "in principle" I'm a libertarian in the sense of live and let live... Libertarian public policy is not uniform, nor is conservative or liberal public policy. To put public policy into an ideological box is not particularly realistic. Even among libertarians there are left-wing and right-wing libertarians.

You're side-stepping the irony.

The principle you are advocating herein - namely, that a government should enforce a ban on cash-for-sex arrangements - is authoritarian (which your Wikipedia article conveniently observes is the antonym of libertarian). It's therefore ironic to say "I am a libertarian 'in principle', and here is an authoritarian principle I support." You may rightfully retort that other individuals who label themselves libertarian support programs that constrain liberty, but that doesn't negate the irony.

In any case, based on my impression of your posts on WSO, I find it unlikely (as I suspect the others hounding you do as well) that your political philosophy is befitting of a "libertarian" label. It seems that, in general, you support the state's intervention to organize social affairs "prudently" and oppose its intervention in corporate affairs. By the definition of most people, you therefore align much more closely with the Republican Party - a conservative, by modern parlance. In that sense, you can't fault them for meeting your suggestion that you are "libertarian in principle" with a raised brow, given your cagey support of libertarian principles.

I don't purport to know all of your political beliefs, but if you're annoyed by the others sneering at you, I suspect this is the root of the issue.

But I also asserted that legalized prostitution can have negative consequences on a neighborhood, hence it is rational for a neighborhood or a community to oppose legalized prostitution in their backyard since, as you assert, your freedom ends at the edge of my nose. That's not duplicity.

It is duplicity! The very essence of liberty is that you support the freedom of individuals to act as they so choose despite any moral / ethical qualms you may have! You're advocating precisely the opposite.

Your observation that it is "rational" for a community to support the state's coercive power to ban cash-for-sex arrangements is yet another argument for not permitting the state to do so. As a restaurant owner (for example), I should very much support the state's coercive power to ban competing restaurants in the area. I may even engage in some shifty political sloganeering, charging lower cost restaurants with "underpaying" local workers or using "processed" ingredients so as to proliferate obesity.

A libertarian recognizes that hegemony can be mobilized to the ends of anyone's social or economic desires and thus its auspice ought to be minimized. One man wields such coercive power to ban the prostitution with which he holds moral qualms, another to ban the teachings of creationism (or evolution) from the classroom, another to constrain the pay packages of Wall Street, another to ban contraception, another to ban certain religious groups, another to institute a minimum wage. Instead of subjecting ourselves to the whims of political proselytizing, the libertarian argues, we should allow individuals the freedom to choose for themselves - whether its accepting cash for sex, the sermons of a religious leader or "low" wages for work; to pay for contraceptives, religious (or secular) education or pricey Wall Street labor - so long as it does not interfere with the property rights of others.

As far as character assassinations, as is always the case, when people can't defeat my arguments they attack me personally. Half of the thread devoted to non-participation in the political process was my response to someone accusing me personally of being a hypocrite. And as is always the case on WSO, I get accused of ad hominem when I'm responding...to ad hominem!

It's perhaps one thing to meet mudslinging tit-for-tat, but your posts in this thread are by far the most incendiary, which I hope even a cursory glance reveals to you. Regardless, I approach the logic of "he started it so I finished it" with skepticism. If your points are indeed valid, why distract from your refutation with subversive "caps-locking"?

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 

This thread in sum:

//www.youtube.com/embed/pYiQ2tB5rsk?rel=0

DCDepository:

Fine. That's your right. But if you choose not to participate in the political system, THEN DON'T F*CKING COMPLAIN ABOUT IT!!!! If you think you're so much better than everyone else who is running for office then RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF! Put your money where your mouth is or SHUT THE F*CK UP!

 

I believe a lot of psychos in this world, like ones who murder a bunch people, are a result of sexual frustration. Legalizing prostitution = less psychos. That's my pitch. Vote for me 2016! But seriously, it's true. Most asholes too aren't getting any pussy. Guy's who are getting enough pusy are content. "But that a*shole is married" Exactly - wife not giving him any / enough.

 

Sigh... here's inviting about a dozen of MS my way. Just try to read the whole thing before you do so. Disclaimer: I'm not a US citizen or resident. Posting this solely from an unbiased outsider's perspective.

I agree with @"DCDepository". There, I said it. Well, on only one of his points, though - if you don't vote, you're not entitled to complain. But let me explain this a bit further. @"DCDepository" has already tried explaining it but I believe it got slightly "lost in translation", what with all the MS flying around. I'm sure he doesn't need my support or help, I'm just trying to make a point clearer.

Imagine, say, @"Edmundo Braverman". He takes one look at the potential candidates, and has a vague idea of their history and beliefs, and decides that none of them are worthy of his vote. This whole exercise doesn't even take up 5 minutes of his time, but it's still a (vaguely) informed decision. Great. You, sir, may go ahead and bitch and complain about whatever shortcomings of the US government feed your fancy.

Alternatively, take another guy who's just vaguely aware that some sort of an election is coming up and doesn't have the faintest idea who the candidates are. Heck, this guy has not even voted once in his life, because he simply doesn't care. To him it doesn't matter who's coming in, they're all the same and they're all shit. So he doesn't even bother to look up the candidates anymore. Obviously, doesn't vote either.

This guy, although well within his rights, is morally NOT entitled to complain about how shitty the government is. He didn't bother to even look at the election candidates - who knows by an astronomical stroke of luck there was one guy running for the seat who actually wanted to legalize his passion, weed. Had he seen this candidate, he would've sprinted to the polling center. And so would have a thousand other guys like him. But they didn't bother to stay informed, but opted to laze around thinking that the country is going to dogs and no change positive change is ever going to happen.

Thus, this second guy and all like him should, as DC put it so eloquently, shut the f*** up.

Move along, nothing to see here.
 
CAinPE:
This guy, although well within his rights, is morally NOT entitled to complain about how shitty the government is. He didn't bother to even look at the election candidates - who knows by an astronomical stroke of luck there was one guy running for the seat who actually wanted to legalize his passion, weed. Had he seen this candidate, he would've sprinted to the polling center. And so would have a thousand other guys like him. But they didn't bother to stay informed, but opted to laze around thinking that the country is going to dogs and no change positive change is ever going to happen.

This might be a valid argument, if it were topical. No one here is complaining about the U.S. government per se, but instead supporting a philosophical position that favors the legality of cash-for-sex arrangements.

See my earlier rejoinder:

NorthSider:
1) As a matter of political philosophy, the citizenship, voting record and affiliations of a person are irrelevant. No one here is bemoaning the U.S. government in particular, but rather supporting an argument of policy: namely, that an optimal government ought not interfere on the rights of individuals to enter into voluntary arrangements with others, including cash-for-sex or cash-for-companionship transactions. No one has solicited your "respect", they are submitting claims re: prudent policy.
"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 

Addendum: Look up Arvind Kejriwal, recently resigned Chief Minister of Delhi, India. Just read the circumstances that led up to his election. He's a well educated common man who gave up everything to become a social activist, and then based on public (yes, public - people like you and me) demand, decided to run for office. And won. All this happened within a year.

Yes, positive political change IS possible - Kejriwal brought it around. Now put the second guy in my previous comment in this situation. He doesn't bother to stay informed and has made a blanket decision not to vote because "all these politicians are the same". Still think he's entitled to an opinion?

Edit: @"Bondarb", I hope you read the above.

Bondarb:

run for office? thats ur answer? cmon lets live in reality and stop with immature bullshit. I am not giving up my job to go spend twenty years elbowing people out of the way and kissing donors asses so i can become a politician.

Move along, nothing to see here.
 
CAinPE:

Addendum: Look up Arvind Kejriwal, recently resigned Chief Minister of Delhi, India. Just read the circumstances that led up to his election. He's a well educated common man who gave up everything to become a social activist, and then based on public (yes, public - people like you and me) demand, decided to run for office. And won. All this happened within a year.

Yes, positive political change IS possible - Kejriwal brought it around. Now put the second guy in my previous comment in this situation. He doesn't bother to stay informed and has made a blanket decision not to vote because "all these politicians are the same". Still think he's entitled to an opinion?

Edit: @Bondarb, I hope you read the above.

Bondarb:

run for office? thats ur answer? cmon lets live in reality and stop with immature bullshit. I am not giving up my job to go spend twenty years elbowing people out of the way and kissing donors asses so i can become a politician.

Good for him, but i dont want to do that for many reasons including that I dont care enough about the general welfare to give up a high paying job for an outside chance at becoming this guy. Sorry,but that still doesnt mean i am going to stop complaining about things. If your water stops working are u only "allowed" to complain if u know all the politicians in ur municipality and the guy who runs the water works?

 
Bondarb:
If your water stops working are u only "allowed" to complain if u know all the politicians in ur municipality and the guy who runs the water works?

Lol.. I'm too tired to think of a response right now, but this point made me laugh... and I mean that in a good way. Come to think of it, this feels like a really stupid thing to devote 4 pages of debate on. I'm gonna go and get a dose of 9gag now.

Move along, nothing to see here.
 

you guys are acting like every shithead who goes out and votes does some crazy due diligence to arrive at their decision vs going with whatever letter is attached to some douchebags name. get the fuck out of here with that bullshit. some dipshit who votes with the party line is more entitled to their opinion vs someone who actually looks at shit but decides it's not worth endorsing this horseshit? fuck you.

what if i don't believe that the current political system aligns incentives enough for these douchebags to do the right thing vs pandering bullshit to get re-elected and further leeching off the taxpayer? what if i look at all these douchebag candidates for whatever the fuck local office and say hey, i don't think some asshole who has only "worked" in the public sector their whole life should be remotely in charge of passing legislation that affects the real world? fuck that

 

Don't mean to interrupt this riveting discussion about prostitution, capitalism, and DCDepository, but just a random site note...

So I don't have much of any formal exposure to political science since I didn't take any such classes in school, and I always hear all these political labels tossed around so casually, but sometimes it seems tricky to precisely distinguish libertariansim from liberalism and conservatism. So, I looked on the web for a good explanation, and came across the below. For someone like me, it is actually quite informative and succinctly captures the difference between the five general political leanings through one simple chart. There is also apparently a well known quiz in the second link that identifies where you fall on that chart. Of course, as I expected I fell at a spot that was pretty close to one of the few points that intersect three of the five camps, thus pretty much ensuring that it is unlikely I would entirely agree with any politician.

http://libertarian.jimeyer.org/ http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

 
Going Concern:

Don't mean to interrupt this riveting discussion about prostitution, capitalism, and DCDepository, but just a random site note...

So I don't have much of any formal exposure to political science since I didn't take any such classes in school, and I always hear all these political labels tossed around so casually, but sometimes it seems tricky to precisely distinguish libertariansim from liberalism and conservatism. So, I looked on the web for a good explanation, and came across the below. For someone like me, it is actually quite informative and succinctly captures the difference between the five general political leanings through one simple chart. There is also apparently a well known quiz in the second link that identifies where you fall on that chart. Of course, as I expected I fell at a spot that was pretty close to one of the few points that intersect three of the five camps, thus pretty much ensuring that it is unlikely I would entirely agree with any politician.

http://libertarian.jimeyer.org/>
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

You beat me to it!

As an aside, I think the following test is a bit more comprehensive (even if a few the questions are more leading than is optimal):

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 
NorthSider:

As an aside, I think the following test is a bit more comprehensive (even if a few the questions are more leading than is optimal):

http://www.politicalcompass.org/>

Took this test and found myself right below Nelson Mandela. Pretty surprised, I thought I'd be more "corporate-leaning", whatever that means. Now I don't even understand what this result means.

Move along, nothing to see here.
 

I got pretty much the same score on both tests, so that's at least a little reassuring.

I think the nice thing of these tests is that they really hit home how there is a whole spectrum of political views based on a wide range of personal/social and economic issues and just casually tossing around "Republican" or "Democrat" or whatever (as DCSuppository tends to do in every thread) is just silly.

 

Natus excepturi tempore qui sunt deleniti voluptates molestiae. Dolore at neque magnam. Consequatur tempore nihil tempore. Vel sunt quia aliquam et.

Rerum corporis voluptatibus explicabo maiores ab aut qui possimus. Natus et ut accusamus perferendis officia mollitia omnis. Nemo eum corrupti eos error ut.

Optio vel quis quaerat ex maxime. Non velit ut enim voluptatum eum. Sit quisquam est vitae minus tempore nostrum. Quisquam alias numquam fuga.

 

Ipsum vero dolor aut ducimus. Qui vero quaerat officia repudiandae et et quisquam. Architecto dolor fuga perspiciatis. Quibusdam unde id fugit rem ducimus possimus ut et. Non ullam et excepturi quo.

Libero rerum iure aperiam veritatis nulla est. Placeat eos quia sed eos incidunt. Et ducimus quia in alias voluptas dolorum.

Currently: future neurologist, current psychotherapist Previously: investor relations (top consulting firm), M&A consulting (Big 4), M&A banking (MM)
 

Qui consequuntur et omnis voluptatibus dolore officiis autem. Laborum ab molestias dolores sint. Omnis aut impedit ipsam officiis. Dolorem rerum molestiae sapiente earum facilis ducimus harum. Veniam repellat amet eos modi molestiae.

Eaque molestias accusamus quam ullam. Voluptas unde consequatur voluptate quo omnis harum et provident. Nostrum voluptatem maxime consequatur nemo in minus rerum.

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 

Distinctio voluptatem saepe adipisci impedit qui voluptatem. In consequuntur est commodi quos incidunt. Voluptate ut eaque est nihil sed omnis nihil. Qui eum ea ducimus sequi. Asperiores deserunt ab minima eos dolorem.

Quo animi porro fuga impedit repellat qui voluptatem provident. Dolores hic sint modi unde et quisquam. Ut voluptatem dolorem magnam facilis ducimus enim reprehenderit. Magnam qui labore dolorem at adipisci. Ea adipisci et voluptas in doloribus et possimus.

Et sed earum commodi illo exercitationem eum autem. Et repellat possimus sed deleniti. Quia harum expedita eius et molestias est. Odit minus corrupti reprehenderit exercitationem autem natus nobis.

Currently: future neurologist, current psychotherapist Previously: investor relations (top consulting firm), M&A consulting (Big 4), M&A banking (MM)

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (85) $262
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (65) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (198) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (143) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
5
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
10
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”