Comments on: I Think the California Family Code Says it Best

By: Phil Haack

Phil Haack — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:56:43 +0000

What if you make dinner? Is that barter? Is barter a financial consideration?

If I wasn’t sick of the library, I’d consider looking for case law on the subject, but let’s be honest, that’s not going to happen.

By: mj

mj — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:58:40 +0000

I think it depends on the dinner.

By: Phil Haack

Phil Haack — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:37:43 +0000

So maybe the question I need to ask my criminal law professor next semester is where the line is drawn between buying dinner and paying for sex.

By: jeff

jeff — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:59:26 +0000

I second that emotion, or lack thereof. Being po’, you need a sugar momma, which would fall under the category of “financial consideration” though it would definitely not be “financial obligation” which might be what they really mean. There hardly is a circumstance of dating where there are no financial considerations. After all, someone has to pay for dinner before you sleep together, right?

By: Phil Haack

Phil Haack — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:27:42 +0000

I suppose it depends…

I haven’t done much research on it, but I suspect that “Sugar Daddy” might come close to “Pimp” in the eyes of The Law (see 647(b))

Or were you asking if I would also be interested in a Sugar Momma?

By: mj

mj — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:40:08 +0000

what about sugar mommas or daddies?