I didn’t suggest the contract.
I voted bad idea for other reasons. While I agree that this basically makes the woman a prostitute, I don’t necessarily think it follows that that person cannot be trusted. Still, the very idea of paying someone for sex just seems like a bad idea to me. If you really feel the need to fulfill sexual urges, there’s better ways to do that. More, there’s the emotional entanglement, because they’re not just sex partners, he’s paying her to pretend to be his girlfriend. If he’s really interested in that aspect and not just sex, then he’s just going to get hurt in the end. Sure, maybe he doesn’t know anything about women, but that doesn’t stop so many other men from trying. I guess it is slightly better that she’s straightforward about her motivations than some other women dating wealthy guys are, but that’s not much.
So yeah, bad idea, just going to get hurt in the end and all he’s really getting out of it is some sex. Get rid of her.
Okay, well, if there’s never any kind of mutually agreed-upon formal contract drawn up between the two parties, then I change my vote from terrible idea to really fucking terrible idea.
Who needs a contract? If either side stops providing what’s wanted, or no longer wants what’s offered, walk away.
Palimony, if they don’t even live together, and he has furthered her career and not stifled it? Palimony for what? I never had a contract with any girlfriend. Of course, I’m not a billionaire … but really? Does a billionaire need a contract with every girlfriend?
The fact that she’s not a typical girlfriend (giving girlfriends the benefit of the doubt here 
)makes palimony even less likely, if that fact comes up.
Of course, a billionaire would be wise to consult his attorney for just about anything he does. My guess is the attorney wouldn’t recommend any kind of contract. What would the quid-pro-quo be? If not a contract, then an affidavit – but of WHAT? Sigh. Glad I’m NOT a billionaire!
She’s offering sex and companionship for money. By definition, that’s being a whore (though we may prefer a nicer term for it, like “escort”.)
It’s like the old joke. The rich guy asks the woman, will you sleep with me for a million dollars? She says “Sure!” He says, OK, how about $5? She gets indignant and cries “Just what do you take me for?” He says, “We’ve already established that; now we’re just haggling over the price.”
But frankly, I give her more credit than what I suppose a lot of people might do, which is to fake it for the benefit. “Whore” is a nasty word with a lot of bad connotations, but it’s better than a lot of things we don’t call that.
Proof you know little of marriage – or at least, a good one. I’d take that bet with you, and if there were any way to prove it, I’d have a farm or two (do we get two if both my wife and I prove faithful? Can I count my parents, and her parents, too? Six farms! No, I don’t know for a fact anything by my own case, but I’d bet dollars to donuts. I’d love to know what the odds are for marriages in general, but I doubt anyone has a good way to find out.)
Regardless of that, marriage is a commitment, sharing your life. That is entirely different from the quid-pro-quo of prostitution. To me, that’s a very important distinction. YMMV, of course.
I don’t really get all the contract insistence either. It is a month to month payment the way I understand it. If she doesn’t fulfill her promise, he just stops paying and they go their separate ways. It is no different than a month to month cell phone plan. The only thing he would be out of in the worst case is one month’s worth of companionship and services and that doesn’t sound like a big risk for him. A contract would create a paper trail and the lawyers would probably cost more than she charges in a month. Besides, call me old-fashioned but having it all in black and white sucks the pure romance out of this whole thing.
I find myself agreeing with you, except for the romance part which I think you’re joking about anyway. Since the mercenary couple would not be cohabiting, I can’t see how Michelle would have a claim for palimony anyway.
My take on it, without reading the thread—No, he should not accept her offer. Legalities aside, the woman is a whore. She doesn’t care about him, she cares about his money. She’s using him as her means to an end. He can do better.
But if she’s an whore, at least she’s an honest one. She’s not pretending to care for him. She was entirely forthright with him when she had no need to be. Given Aloysius’s social deficit and her own abilities, she might easily have wormed herself into his life and house and gotten her claws on a lot more money, no?
In other matters: is what Michelle proposes legally prostitution?
I did a quick search, and found this jury instruction from Connecticut.
Using that as the basis for argument, I think a jury could find either way. The prosecution would argue that a salaried hooker is still a hooker. The defense would argue that she is not selling sex, she is selling her services as “Girlfriend”, which includes her accompanying him to events and otherwise spending time with him.
That… doesn’t seem like such a great plan.
Why not? It is the same deal as a girlfriend or wife except for the specific terms of the hopefully verbal only contract. He isn’t ever going to have kids and that is by far the biggest reason to get married and I would argue the only one. He doesn’t ever need a wife. She needs tuition money and he needs a pseudo-girlfriend of a highly caliber than he could probably get through his (lack of) skills alone. I don’t see a problem with it. This is what you call a win-win.
I have a close family member in roughly the same situation. Whenever I talk to him about this I always say “Remember, lease but don’t buy.”
You’d lose that argument with me. The Druidess and I have no plans to have children. There’s more to marriage than that. Among other things, marriage is economic partnership and emotional bonding.
I don’t think it is a good idea for either party.
I’ve had the dubious privilege of knowing guys who have decided to fulfill their needs entirely commercially. In my experience, it’s fun for a while, but eventually the hollowness catches up with you. Unfortunately, the years you are spent with girls who pretend to enjoy your company is wasted time that you could be spending developing your social and emotional self to the point where you actually are capable of having a real, mutually rewarding relationship. Sometimes, they find their way back to normal human relations, but sometimes they go all John McAfee and next thing you know they are holed up in the jungle with a bevy of 16 year olds, completely out of touch with reality. It’s easy to get into a weird feedback loop with these things, and lose track of what’s real, what’s fake, what’s you, and what’s the act you both are playing. That confusion can cause a great deal of mental and emotional strain, and can easily lead people down various dark paths.
I think what it boils down to is that it’s never- not in business, not in friendship, and not in romance- to surround yourself with people who rely on catering to your ego in order to survive.
As for the young woman, I’d rather her take out student loans (look up income based repayment- it’s not actually that bad!) and spend her energies on developing the skills and experiences that will lead to a sustainable career. To begin with, easy money tends to get spent poorly. But even if she is level headed enough to avoid temptations (which few young people are), it’s still not a particular useful way to spend her youth.
I know you are a lawyer so you could do things perfectly well without complicating matters unnecessarily through a legal and social construct is set up primarily for society’s benefit (not for either your personal benefit). Marriage is a social and legal construct set up ensure both parties stick around to see the kids raised to full maturity and getting out of it is supposed to be difficult by design because of those goals although relaxation of the legal rules greatly deteriorated that. It has nothing to do with romance or love and never has.
You can do that perfectly fine on your own through your own personal and other legal agreements. Someone like you that fell for it is just caving into a marriage industry that makes of billions dollars a year promoting to women in particular that legal marriage is the only real way to prove you love them and the false idea love today will stay that way forever.
I don’t want to argue with you because I know you believe now what you say. Just bookmark this thread and respond back to on March 26, 2023 to reply back if you understand my point at that time or can personally refute it.
Also, assuming this is prostitution, a contract would be irrelevant as a contract on an illegal act is unenforceable.
Really you are paying the prostitute to go away after sex. So I don’t see the point in paying some girl to hang around all the time.
I don’t see how the OP is any different from probably thousands of new relationships every year, with the single exception that the woman is being honest up front. I’d bet a lot of wealthy young men view most of their relationships in a similar vein, but they’d prefer a month to month deal rather than a three year commitment. Do you expect to have the same cell phone in 4 years?
It’s all about fresh ringtones, people!
BTW, there is a recent film very much like this whose title I’m failing to remember. I saw it on IFC or Sundance or one of those indie channels. Young rich guy hires his pretty neighbor as a girlfriend.
Major differences – he made the proposition to her, and she didn’t want sex part of the deal.