Sugar Daddies and sugar angels

ongarboy

There was a feature on last week's Late Late show about a variation of dating agencies that facilitated where wealthy men could basically "buy" beautiful girlfriends who are happy to be with these men as long as they are lavished with gifts, money and all sorts of material things.

I'm just curious about the mindset of men who have to buy love. I'm not talking about hiring a hooker for a ONS - I'm talking about having a long-term relationship with someone who you know is only with you because of your financial generosity. Even outside of the extreme example above with this sugar angel thing, there are many men across Ireland who are known to be with "gold diggers" and these men know their partners intentions where it's very obvious but are still happy to accommodate.

Surely something must not ring true, knowing the only reason that person is with you is because of the money? Does it suggest low self esteem on the part of the man or is it that such issues as esteem don't matter as long as you're getting the action on tap or whatever? Is it the way different men are programmed as I could not look at myself in the mirror if I knew my partner wouldn't look twice at me if I wasn't loaded?

I'm sure there are role reversals also of wealthy women and attractive male opportunists so I'm not trying to be sexist or presumptious here.

Would love to hear the opinion of a gent here who knows this is the set up of their relationship and why they do it....or would their silence confirm that they acknowledge it's all rather pathetic really?

Pat Mustard

I'm sure they married for love

Sleepy

I've always assumed that men getting involved with gold-diggers either do it because they're punching well above their weight looks wise and it's more socially acceptable than using prostitutes... That said, there may be an aspect of enjoying being in control involved?

seraphimvc

well if i was a millionaire and i already have kids and i am divorce etc then why not? Rather than paying for escort occasionally (depends on what kind of life style you are going through, obviously i am talking the kind of lavish/playboy like lifestyle), having a long term companion (gold digger) can be more cost effective and healthier.

I know i sound bad here but thats probably how the rich think

H3llR4iser

Frankly, I don't think they are under any illusion of such kind of "relationship" to involve any real feelings. They know exactly what they are getting into.

On the other hand, a number of relationships that are thought as being "genuine", sour up when the guy has a pay cut or goes through a rough patch - or like it happened a good friend of mine, if the woman lands a well paying job. Success and economical power are, like it or not, a factor.

lazybones32

What's pathetic about it? He wants what she has, she wants what he has and both get what they want. Finding love, your soul-mate or life-partner isn't the aim of the project. It is a straight-up arrangement: sex or companionship or whatever for money or gifts or whatever.

For a person who doesn't have a lot of free time, it could seem like a very efficient and practical set-up.

Amica

Not everybody priorities a deep emotional connection in relationships and not everybody is idealistic/romantic enough for that. Some people care more about sharing religion, wealth, social status, a fun lifestyle, good sex etc. People who go for arranged marriages likewise aren't prioritising romance. As lazybones said,

He wants what she has, she wants what he has and both get what they want

It's not what most of us want but as long as they're honest with each other and happy, it's fair enough.

We probably assume they like nothing else about each other but the likelihood is, if they're going to spend a significant amount of time together, they probably at least find each other tolerable. In other words, they're probably looking for a rich man/beautiful woman who doesn't get on their nerves - so they're not too fussy really!

Holsten

If they both want to do it, what the problem?

Wouldn't really be for me though.

Littlekittylou

Holsten wrote: »

If they both want to do it, what the problem?

Wouldn't really be for me though.

They are the problem.............with humanity.

This forum is getting quite depressing.

eviltwin

Littlekittylou wrote: »

They are the problem.............with humanity.

This forum is getting quite depressing.

I don't get what you mean by that. Once no one is being fooled into thinking there is more to it than there is so what? Its not something I could do myself and I don't think long term its very healthy emotionally but as a short term diversion where both parties benefit then I don't see anything wrong with that kind of arrangement.

ancapailldorcha

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't get what you mean by that. Once no one is being fooled into thinking there is more to it than there is so what? Its not something I could do myself and I don't think long term its very healthy emotionally but as a short term diversion where both parties benefit then I don't see anything wrong with that kind of arrangement.

I knew a woman whose Dad did this. She was extremely volatile to the point of instability and managed to alienate the entire workforce. Her Dad married a woman half his age from Nigeria. There might have been other things at play but having a geriatric father will involve more work from the mother. I wouldn't think that it can work but I'm sure there are good examples somewhere.

lazybones32

Littlekittylou wrote: »

They are the problem.............with humanity.

This forum is getting quite depressing.

I think they're being more honest. Being honest doesn't mean it's right but at least they're not deceiving each other or entering a relationship under pretence.
We've all been used by someone and it's not nice. Personally, I'd respect them more if they were straight about their purpose.

ancapailldorcha

lazybones32 wrote: »

I think they're being more honest. Being honest doesn't mean it's right but at least they're not deceiving each other or entering a relationship under pretence.
We've all been used by someone and it's not nice. Personally, I'd respect them more if they were straight about their purpose.

I don't really know how one could ascertain what's "right" in this context once the people involved are adults giving informed consent.

beks101

It's a bit transaction-y though, isn't it?

Each to their own and all that, but where does someone go for emotional support and reassurance and intimacy and all that "I give a sh1t about you" stuff that you generally get from a relationship, if they're solely with their partner because she is hot and will let you have a go regularly / he's got a fat wallet?

eviltwin

beks101 wrote: »

It's a bit transaction-y though, isn't it?

Each to their own and all that, but where does someone go for emotional support and reassurance and intimacy and all that "I give a sh1t about you" stuff that you generally get from a relationship, if they're solely with their partner because she is hot and will let you have a go regularly / he's got a fat wallet?

Plenty of people in so called real relationships get zero emotional support from their partner. In an ideal world you'd get someone amazing who filled your needs and who you actually loved as well and the feeling would be mutual and all that but it doesn't always work out that way. And some people just don't want the emotional attachment, they get all that from friends or family.

dr.fuzzenstein

This says it all really:

Deranged96

Love is an abstract and tricky concept at the best of times.

Love of money, love of comfort, love of security, love of home, love of adoration. That's what these women get, and if they themselves have a strong capacity for human love then they very well may love their keepers.

The men on the other hand are creatures of a different breed, narcissistic and gerascophobic would be my guess. That's not to say their desire for the young ones is solely based on sexual desirability, "love" surely comes into play after a while.

I'd just like to see a situation where she gets fat and he goes broke at the same time

lazybones32

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't really know how one could ascertain what's "right" in this context once the people involved are adults giving informed consent.

By evaluating the situation. Many, many factors need to be taken into account and the positives need to be weighed against the negatives. The short, medium and long-term consequences of actions need to be considered too.

In short, I wouldn't recommend this as the right way to proceed for my daughter/niece/sister. Of course, she'd be free to make her own mind but I think the negative implications seriously outweigh the financial or material benefit.

Our decisions impact the people in our lives, no matter how secret or compartmentalised we keep them.

ancapailldorcha

Oh, it's not a situation I'd desire for myself, nevermind for any offspring I may or may not have. I just think that people should be able to do as they please as long as noone's getting hurt and everyone knows the score.

batistuta9

there was a program on channel 4 called rinsers i think, it was about women who interacted with rich men, for well money.
one was a glamour model, she used to be on the sex chat channels on sky & was in big brother too, what she did was basically video chat (just chat) with guys & they bought her gifts, gave cash, etc.
another was out in clubs looking for guys that would buy her stuff, one even flew her to new york & let her buy whatever she wanted.
the third girl, was an online dominatrix, sitting in room with her mother, not even in full gear.

these women were getting as much out of the men for as little as possible, no sex they maintained anyway, nothing physical. the men seemed happy with the companionship & funding extravagant lifestyles for a little bit of interaction.
that's the kind of vibe i took from the whole sugar babies thing, except men had more say in what the girls did, the ones in that c4 program were calling the shots




anyway, nobody is in a relationship for nothing, you're offering something to the other person. whether it's looks, personality, financial potential/stability whatever.
what does it mean when someone says they want an ambitious partner? that they'll earn as much as possible :pac:

it'd be interesting to see how you'd deal with becoming famous - not the celebrity, reality type - but successful in your field, later on in life, and the increased attention from women.
do they like you now because your successful/rich or do they just like you and you're in the same circles to meet them now?

Wibbs

seraphimvc wrote: »

well if i was a millionaire and i already have kids and i am divorce etc then why not? Rather than paying for escort occasionally (depends on what kind of life style you are going through, obviously i am talking the kind of lavish/playboy like lifestyle), having a long term companion (gold digger) can be more cost effective and healthier.

I know i sound bad here but thats probably how the rich think

TBH if I was very rich I'd be thinking along the same lines. As one billionaire chap once said, remember the three F's if it floats, flies or F***s, rent don't buy, it's way cheaper in the long run. With no fault divorce in many jurisdictions in the world a man of means would want to be either 100% sure, or daft to "put a ring on it" with a woman he met after he had made his money and she knew the score. Very different if you met before all that. EG Alan Sugar is with his wife for decades. She was there at the start and through all the ups and especially downs and she's been a support, a mentor and a damned good mate throughout. Real soul mate stuff join on and it's clear to see that even after all these years he adores her. What are the odds he would bump into a woman like that when he was already a gazillionaire? The plain fact is powerful men(and not just in monetary terms) attract more women, just as beautiful women attract more men, so it's no great shock that it becomes monetised by some.

Wibbs

batistuta9 wrote: »

these women were getting as much out of the men for as little as possible, no sex they maintained anyway, nothing physical.

Versus

except men had more say in what the girls did, the ones in that c4 program were calling the shots

I wouldn't see that as calling the shots B. Look, if I was throwing down a couple of grand a month on some dollybird, nothing physical would not be an option, not unless I was a gay lad who hired her for keeping up the pretence of a "beard" if I was surrounded by backward gobshítes. This is a transaction, you want your bling, I better be getting your ring so to speak. What sort of sap is laying down thousands a month for nothing? Sheesh. Maybe old F S Fitzgerald was right, the rich are different from you and me.

anyway, nobody is in a relationship for nothing, you're offering something to the other person. whether it's looks, personality, financial potential/stability whatever.
what does it mean when someone says they want an ambitious partner? that they'll earn as much as possible :pac:

True dat. Though folks are usually not conscious of that kinda thing. I envy them on that score TBH.

it'd be interesting to see how you'd deal with becoming famous - not the celebrity, reality type - but successful in your field, later on in life, and the increased attention from women.
do they like you now because your successful/rich or do they just like you and your in the same circles to meet them now?

If that happened to me? Like I said in my previous post, I'd be very suspish. Would keep them at arms/hearts length, but enjoy their company while it lasted. And if I was the "sugar daddy", it would want to be physical or game over. That said I couldn't be the sugar daddy type TBH. Even if it was some "arrangement" I'd be looking for an independent woman well beyond college age(unless she's doing her masters as a mature student). I'd feel more than a bit wrong to be hanging out with a 20 year old at my age. And no, that's not some societal pressure BS either, I might see such a woman as lovely looking but it would be in the abstract, now if she was 28...

Liam McPoyle

Ivana Trump was once asked (or so the story goes) would she be with Donald Trump if he wasnt wealthy.

She retorted (again, as the story goes) would Donald Trump be with me if I wasnt beautiful?


If people are happy with that dynamic then more power to them, it wouldnt be for me though.

batistuta9

Wibbs wrote: »

Versus


I wouldn't see that as calling the shots B. Look, if I was throwing down a couple of grand a month on some dollybird, nothing physical would not be an option, not unless I was a gay lad who hired her for keeping up the pretence of a "beard" if I was surrounded by backward gobshítes. This is a transaction, you want your bling, I better be getting your ring so to speak. What sort of sap is laying down thousands a month for nothing? Sheesh. Maybe old F S Fitzgerald was right, the rich are different from you and me.

the women in the channel 4 show were calling the shots i meant. they controlled when they met, spoke, called. the type of women who you just know are calling the men 'losers' or whatever.
this is one of them, the model, ex sex line worker
they seemed to be playing their looks off the mens desire & it works perfectly for them. i assume the men have issues of some sort, gullibility at least :pac:

the crowd on the late late, sugar babies, would have outfits, look, where the went, etc. picked by the sugar daddies, but
i still don't think they're giving it up, at least not all of them. & it's like the girls above they're exploiting the mens desire, albeit not as well (they have to let the man choose more)

Wibbs wrote: »

True dat. Though folks are usually not conscious of that kinda thing. I envy them on that score TBH.

i think men are more aware of it. it is generalising but a woman is likely to get by solely on looks more so than a man.

Wibbs wrote: »

If that happened to me? Like I said in my previous post, I'd be very suspish. Would keep them at arms/hearts length, but enjoy their company while it lasted. And if I was the "sugar daddy", it would want to be physical or game over. That said I couldn't be the sugar daddy type TBH. Even if it was some "arrangement" I'd be looking for an independent woman well beyond college age(unless she's doing her masters as a mature student). I'd feel more than a bit wrong to be hanging out with a 20 year old at my age. And no, that's not some societal pressure BS either, I might see such a woman as lovely looking but it would be in the abstract, now if she was 28...

yeah of course you'd be suspicious, chances are you've never experienced anything like it. that's the reason i said later on in life, if you've grown up with it - sports star, musician, actor - from a young age it's likely normal to you & you're used with it, that's your normality.
going into that kind of environment i'm not sure what i'd do, i like to think i'd look for a partner that was financially better off than me, rule the golddigger out at least but temptation can be hard to resist, especially when thinking with the wrong head

batistuta9

Business Cat wrote: »

Ivana Trump was once asked (or so the story goes) would she be with Donald Trump if he wasnt wealthy.

She retorted (again, as the story goes) would Donald Trump be with me if I wasnt beautiful?


If people are happy with that dynamic then more power to them, it wouldnt be for me though.

i may as well mention it before someone else;

peter crouch, a footballer married to abbey clancy, a model, when asked what he'd be if he wasn't a footballer? "probably a virgin"

Aidric

Wibbs wrote: »

The plain fact is powerful men(and not just in monetary terms) attract more women, just as beautiful women attract more men, so it's no great shock that it becomes monetised by some.

True. There was an interesting interview on Pat Kenny's show during the week with the Irish Times Paris correspondent Lara Marlowe, where they were discussing the Strauss Kahn case. With his recent travails you would expect women would be giving him a wide berth.

On the contrary, according to a friend of hers who saw him in a Paris restaurant recently. When his partner went to the bathroom a number of women came to his table giving him their numbers.

Like most matters relating to relationships between men and women there are no hard and fast rules. If both parties are content more luck to them.

strobe

More power to them sure. The girl gets a lifestyles she's couldn't otherwise possibly afford. The guy gets a girl he couldn't otherwise possibly get. Seems mutually beneficial arrangement. I doubt there are many of the guys under any illusion the girl is with them for any reason other than the money. Or the girls under any illusion that the guy just wants to regularly bang a beautiful girl and have her on his arm. That if he goes broke she'll leave or that if she gets fat or stops the sex at the click of his fingers he'll drop her in a second. As long as everyone's clear don't see the problem.

D'Agger

Littlekittylou wrote: »

They are the problem.............with humanity

This forum is getting quite depressing.

You're right, less of these well thought out opinions & more slurs please

DivingDuck

I think it's great. Consenting, informed adults deciding what they want and then making it happen? If only there was more of it. It gives people the opportunity to be honest about what they're prepared to give, and what they want to get get in return, when not looking for a traditional romantic relationship.

The alternative to this is not "having a normal relationship", since that option continues to be available to them, and they're opting not to take it. They could just be alone/live on a reduced income, but that's obviously not what's wanted, either. No, when this is taken off the table, the real alternative becomes feigning love for either cash or sex-- and that's horrible, no matter which party is doing the deceiving. If this stops people being taken for a ride or having their heart broken, how can it be a bad thing?

I'm not sure I could participate, personally, but I think the honesty and transactional nature of these relationships is incredibly respectful and fair. So long as neither party is being abusive (i.e., refusing to let the other person exit the arrangement, or pushing for things originally agreed as a no-no), I can see nothing at all wrong with it.

dr.fuzzenstein

DivingDuck wrote: »

I think it's great. Consenting, informed adults deciding what they want and then making it happen? If only there was more of it. It gives people the opportunity to be honest about what they're prepared to give, and what they want to get get in return, when not looking for a traditional romantic relationship.

The alternative to this is not "having a normal relationship", since that option continues to be available to them, and they're opting not to take it. They could just be alone/live on a reduced income, but that's obviously not what's wanted, either. No, when this is taken off the table, the real alternative becomes feigning love for either cash or sex-- and that's horrible, no matter which party is doing the deceiving. If this stops people being taken for a ride or having their heart broken, how can it be a bad thing?

I'm not sure I could participate, personally, but I think the honesty and transactional nature of these relationships is incredibly respectful and fair. So long as neither party is being abusive (i.e., refusing to let the other person exit the arrangement, or pushing for things originally agreed as a no-no), I can see nothing at all wrong with it.

I do not. There's nothing honest about it. The guy is deceiving himself into thinking that she actually likes him, despite the fact that he might be into his 60's or 70's and is trying very hard to ignore the fact that he is being taken for a fool, all so he can have a bit of arm candy.
She is desperately trying to convince herself that this is all worth it and most of the time it's not so bad, until the old codger gets ideas and starts putting his hands on her. I have no idea what that is like, you'd have to ask a prostitute what it's like to sleep with a fat, old, bald, ugly man for money. She just needs a ring on her finger and maybe a marriage contract that is not too strict, or none at all, in that case it cha-ching, jackpot!
Going to a prostitute is a transaction, there's the cash, wham, bang, thank you mam.
Pretending to be in some kind of relationship on both sides is very sad. It would have to be a very primitive mind that thinks that money makes everything OK.
Paul said it best when he said can't buy me love.

nxbyveromdwjpg

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The guy is deceiving himself into thinking that she actually likes him, despite the fact that he might be into his 60's or 70's and is trying very hard to ignore the fact that he is being taken for a fool, all so he can have a bit of arm candy.
She is desperately trying to convince herself that this is all worth it

So many assumptions.

You have no idea what they're thinking. It all looks extremely obvious and straight forward to me and I'm positive it's the same to both parties involved.

dr.fuzzenstein

nm wrote: »

So many assumptions.

You have no idea what they're thinking. It all looks extremely obvious and straight forward to me and I'm positive it's the same to both parties involved.

I'm sure it's a perfectly satisfactory arrangement for the kind of person that values money and posessions over love and happiness. Of course if anyone wants to be on either side of this transaction that's fine by me.
But to say we have no idea what they're thinking? C'mon, you kidding me? He wants arm candy and blowjobs and she wants money and maybe fame.

nxbyveromdwjpg

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But to say we have no idea what they're thinking? C'mon, you kidding me? He wants arm candy and blowjobs and she wants money and maybe fame.

Sure, so where is this deceit or self deceit you were talking about both parties engaging in?
You're contradicting your previous post.

dr.fuzzenstein

nm wrote: »

Sure, so where is this deceit or self deceit you were talking about both parties engaging in?
You're contradicting your previous post.

It's more themselves that they're deceiving.

KomradeBishop

I can't help but feel that monetization of sex/relationships in any form seems quite seedy, but if this is what they want then it's their choice, and it should be allowed (same way prostitution should be legal).

Not in any rush to talk it up or speak positively of it mind...

I think monetization of sex/relationships carries a fairly complex set of moral issues with it (depending upon specific circumstances), which ties into economic moral issues, given the kinds of social dynamics it could create if it became universally accepted; so my initial thoughts, are that there should always be some amount social pressure against it, in the form of judgement (but never in the form of laws).

dr.fuzzenstein

Absolutely. I may not entirely agree with it (though I might change my mind if I ever turn out to be a 70 year old billionaire), but in the end it is up to the individual.

Amica

discussion seems to have focussed more on the sugar angel's side (she's only with him for his money) and the possible lack of morals/self respect etc related to it...is it more despicable to be with somebody for their money than for their looks?

dr.fuzzenstein

Amica wrote: »

discussion seems to have focussed more on the sugar angel's side (she's only with him for his money) and the possible lack of morals/self respect etc related to it...is it more despicable to be with somebody for their money than for their looks?

I wouldn't go as far as to say despicable. In the end everyone has to make up their own mind:

Amica

You totally missed my point. I didn't ask if it's despicable - what I meant is: is it worse to be with somebody for their money than for their looks?

ancapailldorcha

Amica wrote: »

You totally missed my point. I didn't ask if it's despicable - what I meant is: is it worse to be with somebody for their money than for their looks?

Is it viable to be with someone long term just based on their looks. The novelty will wear off at some point whereas being with someone for their money involves having a better lifestyle and time to yourself while they're at work.

Amica

Is it viable to be with someone long term just based on their looks. The novelty will wear off at some point whereas being with someone for their money involves having a better lifestyle and time to yourself while they're at work.

if you only have a life expectancy of ten years then it's not really an issue. Whether the charm of good looks/money wears off or not depends on the person etc and you really just avoided my question. Is being with somebody for their money in some way worse than being with someone for their good looks?

ancapailldorcha

Amica wrote: »

if you only have a life expectancy of ten years then it's not really an issue. Whether the charm of good looks/money wears off or not depends on the person etc and you really just avoided my question. Is being with somebody for their money in some way worse than being with someone for their good looks?

Only a subset of the wealthy are elderly. When I lived in Manchester for example, I noticed that a lot of girls seemed to only want a footballer.

Amica

...still avoiding my question

ancapailldorcha

It's not really my place to pass judgement on people who get into relationships for unorthodox reasons. It's a subjective question asking which is worse.

skallywag

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The guy is deceiving himself into thinking that she actually likes him...

What makes you think that the guy really thinks this, and does not actually see the situation for what it really is?

Amica

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's not really my place to pass judgement on people who get into relationships for unorthodox reasons. It's a subjective question asking which is worse.

well I wasn't looking an objective answer! :pac: Just people's opinions. Was that your roundabout way of saying iyo neither are better or worse?

ancapailldorcha

Amica wrote: »

well I wasn't looking an objective answer! :pac: Just people's opinions. Was that your roundabout way of saying iyo neither are better or worse?

Depends on the specific cases but coneceptually, neither seems to be "worse" than the other.

LordNorbury

There have always been women who dated/married or sought out men for their income and to obtain access to a lifestyle that would not be possible when dating one of us mere mortals who is tolling away in the middle class.

I can think of at least two "celebrity models" in Ireland who have very obviously been in relationships with their respective other halves, because of the money they earn, and one of these wags is still in a relationship with the rich guy she is in a relationship and this couple are well known on the Irish "celebrity" scene. The other model was in a relationship with a guy old enough to be her father and it is obvious that money/wealth was the attraction. Both women I will not name but everyone knows who these two women are, both women are well known Irish models.

If men with more money than sense want to lavish money on young women in college in exchange for sexual favours, then leave them to it is my view, once it is two consenting adults. Yes it is basically a somewhat convoluted form of prostitution in some way, but if we are to have an issue with this in the legal sense, then we would also need to ban all attractive women chasing wealthy men and that is just what this is, only that instead of the eye lashes being fluttered across the VIP bar in Crystal Nightclub, the sales pitch is happening online, other than that, there is no difference whatsoever here that I can see.

dr.fuzzenstein

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Depends on the specific cases but coneceptually, neither seems to be "worse" than the other.

Agree. Being with someone purely for their money or their looks, one is as shallow as the other.
If you look at a lot of TV programs, there seem to be plenty of people who are perfectly happy to lead utterly meaningless lives defined by nothing but money, glamour, fame and bling. Those are not the qualities that painted the Sistine chapel, composed Beethoven's 5th (aka da da da dam) or put man on the moon, but hey, we can't all be contributors of value or meaning to the human race. One does however worry that this is becoming more prevalent.

Littlekittylou

D'Agger wrote: »

You're right, less of these well thought out opinions & more slurs please

What you think saying that is going to change my mind or the truth? Sometimes the truth is pithy.

Strauss has has been tried three times for rape the charges came to nothing but he admitted sexually harassing a female journalist. He still has to face more music. This is going on now.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/22/dominique-strauss-kahn-lille-pimping-trial

The facts that have been revealed are nasty.

The scandal didn’t lie with the fact Strauss-Kahn had slept with prostitutes,” explains Poirier, “but that he hadn’t paid for their services. Others [paid for him], hoping they would get favours in return when he became president, and that was the shocking thing – a clear conflict of interests.”Strauss-Kahn remains, she says, magnificently unrepentant

Sometimes the truth is blunt and pithy. These people are sleazy and keep nasty company. Would you really TRUST a sugar baby? Honestly? Or a sugar Daddy? I know I wouldn't.

They end up trying to screw each other over so everyone gets screwed over! Corruption loss of values and human roadkill.

I repeat they are what is wrong with humanity.

My pithy frank opinion is no slur.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

Strauss-Kahn hasn't been convicted of any crime. Therefore, no defamatory statements please. This site doesn't need a lawsuit.