As Media Dissects The Atlantic/Scientology Mess, College Prostitution Website Ad Makes “News”


Yesterday Gawker and other sites highlighted an ad published on the website of The Atlantic that appeared to be a regular blog post, save for the graphic indicating it was sponsored content. As Erik Wemple at The Washington Post reports, today The Atlantic says:

“We screwed up.” That’s what The Atlantic said after it posted an online advertorial from the Church of Scientology, provoking a Twitter backlash and eventually leading the publication to take the feature offline.

…The Atlantic official expressed no regret at having taken down the Scientology feature. At the same time, the official cautioned against reading too much into the move: “We’re not passing judgment in the moment on the Church of Scientology and their advertising initiative,” said the official. “I just think we’re actually trying to be really honest about the situation and recognize we’re in a little bit of uncharted waters with this ad format. Combine this ad format with an advertiser like this, and it puts you further in uncharted waters.”

Against that backdrop, consider a story making the rounds today. It’s a “study” by a website dedicated to hooking up young females (sugar babies) with older males (sugar daddies) where the young women ask for $3,000 to $10,000 a month from sugar daddies. What the sugar daddies get in return isn’t actually detailed, but the inference is that the young women will be “spending time” with their sugar daddies.


The New York Post reports:

More New York City co-eds are turning to a new source of income — sugar daddies — to cope with the rising cost of their college tuition, surprising statistics released yesterday reveal.

And the majority is enrolled at New York University, according to the sugar-daddy dating site

Nearly 300 NYU co-eds joined the site’s service last year seeking a “mutually beneficial” arrangement with rich older men — a 154 percent jump over 2011.

CBS in St. Louis:

ST. LOUIS, Mo. (KMOX) – The University of Missouri – St. Louis is ranked as number 33 on a list of college campuses where female students are getting help from so-called Sugar Daddies to pay their tuition.

The website, which bills itself as the “world’s largest Sugar Daddy website,” says 72 UMSL coeds in 2012 were part of a trend of cash-strapped students trading a relationship with an older man for tuition money.

Spokesman LeRoy Velasquez says the ranking is based on members who signed up with the school’s unique .edu email address.

In case you were wondering, Velasquez says what the website offers is not prostitution.

“While these woman are joining the website to help pay their tuition, they don’t just simply exchange sex for money, its much more complicated.”

The Atlanta Journal Constitution actually shared the PR e-mail they got from the site on their education blog, in addition to running a piece in the paper. The stories go on and on, with stories in The Miami Herald, USAToday, New York Daily News, etc. The pitch is tailored to the individual market, but there’s always mention of

This is PR provided news, which in turns serves as an advertisement for, which is running what is arguably a prostitution service – have a look if you don’t believe me. Unlike the piece in The Atlantic there’s no disclaimer on these stories.

So which is worse?

Two Six-Year-Old's Suspended For Playing "Cops And Robbers"
It's Against The Law To Give Wedgie
  • jim_m

    The left is OK with prostitution when the money generated feeds the academic elite. Otherwise it becomes exploitation of women if they keep any of the money for themselves.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    While the right is perfectly OK with their nutjob presidential candidates (and spouses), when the money generated, feeds their campaign staffs and improves the selling of their religious, biographical books, with the added bonus they feel that they don’t have to pay back their campaign bills either, to the little people who sponsored them in the first place.

  • Commander_Chico

    It’s not exactly news that many if not most women whore for money in some way. It’s biology, they are seeking a good provider. There are a million variations on the theme, including most marriages. Reminds me of the expression “I prefer to pay for sex, it’s cheaper.”

    This Sugar Daddy site is just another way. The site seems unnecessary: if you posted a profile on any dating site like or OKCupid implying you were rich rich rich, you’d have more and better women chasing you than the ones on the Sugar Daddy site. These women from other dating sites would not have to take the conscious step of signing up for a “Sugar Daddy,” so they would be less consciously mercenary. They would find your fat bald old ass surprisingly attractive for some reason, though. If you played it right, you’d be able to hit it a few times and break away clean with few damage$. “Sugar Babies” would want the cash up front.

    The existence of this discussion, and I am sure many other discussions, is proof of the value of reporting “Sugar Daddies.”

    Most “news” is corporate or government PR in some way. Maybe 5% comes from an independent search for the truth. The rest is all from flacks and spinners.

    What government and business does is news, and of course part of collecting the news is listening to what government and business says. Where the media falls down is critically examining those statements.

  • Paul Hooson

    The fact is that no guy will appreciate an younger woman like an older man. I’m 57 and my girlfriend is a 29 year old blond. I’m very proud of her, and just can’t keep my hands or mouth off every inch of her. She’s just as soft as a baby. I just worship her. We’re both real happy. If older guys and younger women want to hook up, more power to them. I don’t judge others who want someone to love.