Fascinating case

Babe dates married billionaire for several years.

Then complains about being in a money for sex relationship.

The self-proclaimed lover of a billionaire New York investor is not only suing the financier in court but she has confronted his wife on the popular micro-blogging site.

In an explosive lawsuit, Katherine Nelson alleges that Robert Rosenkranz, a fixture in Manhattan social and philanthropic circles, tricked her into signing a “money-for-sex” gagging deal after a four-year affair conducted in high-end hotels, restaurants and at charity events.

Err, yes, OK dear.

7 thoughts on “Fascinating case”

  1. Wasn’t there a similar case in New York about 30 years ago? I believe the mistress of a dead ‘rich man’ wanted a large part of his will on the basis of having shagged him quite a lot for a longish period of time. After hearing all the details of the ‘relationship’ the judge dismissed her as essentially a highly paid hooker with an exclusive client relationship. Her other relationships weren’t business presumably.
    (Actually, I’ll drop the inverted commas from ‘relationship’; it was a relationship of sorts; isn’t everything)

  2. So if you’re single, letting your girlfriend keep a spare pair of knickers at your gaff makes it her gaff when you split up, but if you’re married the mistress never gets a look in. Is that how it works?

  3. Roue de Jour.-

    If you’re married you definitely don’t let your girlfriend keep a spare pare of knickers at your gaff.

  4. Why does the idea exist that taking part in voluntary sexual activity means that a man has to pay and pay and pay. In times before contraception then an expensive child was always a possibility and it is right that a man should pay for what he has chosen (or taken the risk of choosing) to bring on. But nowadays there is NO reason why a voluntary and precautions taken shag should financially obligate a man beyond the initial agreement–either dinner/what-have-you or a sex-workers agreed fee.
    It seems to be a sort of demented thought that sex is either so horrible or such a big favour on the woman’s part that it should automatically incur an open-ended financial obligation on the man.

  5. So Much for Subtlety

    Mr Ecks – “It seems to be a sort of demented thought that sex is either so horrible or such a big favour on the woman’s part that it should automatically incur an open-ended financial obligation on the man.”

    There is a logic to it – the more men women sleep with the less valuable they are to most men. The more sexual partners a woman has, the higher the risk of divorce. A lot higher actually.

    But that is not really what is driving this. The feminists may have a demented view of men – and men are so horrible woman could only have sex with them if they are tricked, right? However the other main driver of these laws are the social conservatives. They do not want men to shag women outside marriage. So these laws are a way of punishment men who do so. It is stupid but it is not nuts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *